Tamar Degani

Semantic ambiguity within and across languages: An integrative review

Semantic ambiguity often occurs within a language (e.g., the word “organ” in English means both a body part and a musical instrument), but it can also cross a language boundary, such that a given word form is shared in two languages, but its meanings are different (e.g., the word “angel” means “sting” in Dutch). Bilingual individuals are therefore faced not only with ambiguity in each of their languages, but also with ambiguity across languages. The current review focuses on studies that explored such cross-language ambiguity and examines how the results from these studies can be integrated with what we have learned about within-language ambiguity resolution. In particular, this review examines how interactions of frequency and context manifest themselves in ambiguity that crosses a language boundary and call for the inclusion of language context as a contributing factor. An extension of the monolingual reordered access model (Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988) is outlined to discuss the interactions between these factors. Furthermore, the effects of the similarity between the two meanings, task differences, and individual differences are explored. This review highlights the need for studies that test within- and cross-language ambiguity in the same individuals before strong conclusions can be made about the nature of interactions between frequency, semantic context, and language context.

Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation

This study investigated reciprocal influences between the first and second languages of bilingual speakers. Participants were monolingual English speakers and bilingual speakers of English and Hebrew who learned Hebrew either as a first language or as a second language. Participants rated the semantic similarity of English word pairs that either shared a Hebrew translation or did not, and that varied in their baseline relatedness in English. Shared-translation pairs (e.g., tool and dish are both translated as “kli” in Hebrew) were rated as more similar in meaning than different-translation pairs by both bilingual groups, but not by the monolinguals. Knowledge of Hebrew influenced the way bilinguals processed words in English not only when Hebrew was the native language but also when it was learned as a second language later in life. These findings provide evidence for bidirectional transfer, and emphasise the dynamic nature of the bilingual lexicon.

Ambiguous words are harder to learn

Relatively little is known about the role of ambiguity in adult second-language learning. In this study, native English speakers learned Dutch–English translation pairs that either mapped in a one-to-one fashion (unambiguous items) in that a Dutch word uniquely corresponded to one English word, or mapped in a one-to-many fashion (ambiguous items), with two Dutch translations corresponding to a single English word. These two Dutch translations could function as exact synonyms, corresponding to a single meaning, or could correspond to different meanings of an ambiguous English word (e.g., wisselgeld denotes the monetary meaning of the word change, and verandering denotes alteration). Several immediate and delayed tests revealed that such translation ambiguity creates a challenge for learners. Furthermore, words with multiple translations corresponding to the same meaning are more difficult to learn than words with multiple translations corresponding to multiple meanings, suggesting that a one-to-many mapping underlies this ambiguity disadvantage.

Together or apart: Learning of translation-ambiguous words ∗

In a multiple-session training study, native English speakers learned foreign Dutch vocabulary items that mapped to English either in a one-to-one way (translation-unambiguous) or in a one-to-many way (translation-ambiguous), such that two Dutch words corresponded to a single English translation. Critically, these two translation-ambiguous Dutch words were taught on consecutive trials in the same session, or were presented separately, such that each word was taught in a separate session. Translation-ambiguous words were produced and recognized substantially less accurately than translation-unambiguous words on tests administered one and three weeks after training. An ambiguity advantage emerged, however, in a free-recall test. Interestingly, teaching both translations together led to superior performance over teaching them in separate sessions, in which case the translation learned first enjoyed a considerable advantage over that learned second. These findings underscore the importance of order of acquisition in second-language vocabulary learning, and have practical implications for language instruction.

Cross-language influences: translation status affects intraword sense relatedness

Many words have more than one meaning, and these meanings vary in their degree of relatedness. In the present experiment, we examined whether this degree of relatedness is influenced by whether or not the two meanings share a translation in a bilingual’s other language. Native English speakers with Spanish as a second language (i.e., English-Spanish bilinguals) and native Spanish speakers with English as a second language (i.e., Spanish-English bilinguals) were presented with pairs of phrases instantiating different senses of ambiguous English words (e.g., dinner date–expiration date) and were asked to decide whether the two senses were related in meaning. Critically, for some pairs of phrases, a single Spanish translation encompassed both meanings of the ambiguous word (joint-translation condition; e.g., mercado in Spanish refers to both a flea market and the housing market), but for others, each sense corresponded to a different Spanish translation (split-translation condition; e.g., cita in Spanish refers to a dinner date, but fecha refers to an expiration date). The proportions of “yes” (related) responses revealed that, relative to monolingual English speakers, Spanish–English bilinguals consider joint-translation senses to be less related than split-translation senses. These findings exemplify semantic cross-language influences from a first to a second language and reveal the semantic structure of the bilingual lexicon.

Direct and indirect effects of multilingualism on novel language learning: An integrative review

Accumulated recent research suggests that prior knowledge of multiple languages leads to advantages in learning additional languages. In the current article, we review studies examining potential differences between monolingual and multilingual speakers in novel language learning in an effort to uncover the cognitive mechanisms that underlie such differences. We examine the multilingual advantage in children and adults, across a wide array of languages and learner populations. The majority of this literature focused on vocabulary learning, but studies that address phonology, grammar, and literacy learning are also discussed to provide a comprehensive picture of the way in which multilingualism affects novel language learning. Our synthesis indicates two avenues to the multilingual advantage including direct transfer of prior knowledge and prior skills as well as indirect influences that result from multilingual background and include more general changes to the cognitive-linguistic system. Finally, we highlight topics that are in need of future systematic research.

Is susceptibility to cross-language interference domain specific?

The ability to overcome interference from the first-language (L1) is a source of variability in second language (L2) achievement, which has to date been explored mainly in same-script bilinguals. Such interference management, and bilingual language control more generally, have recently been linked to domain general executive functions (EF). In the current study, we examined L2 proficiency and executive functions as possible predictors of susceptibility to L1 interference during L2 processing, in bilinguals whose languages do not share an orthographic system. Seventy Arabic-Hebrew bilingual university students performed two tasks indexing cross-language interference (from L1 to L2). Lexical interference was assessed using a cross-modal semantic similarity judgment task in Hebrew, with false-cognates as critical items. Syntactic interference was assessed using a self-paced reading paradigm and grammaticality judgments on Hebrew sentences whose syntactic structures differed from those of Arabic. EFs were examined using spatial and numerical Stroop tasks, to index inhibitory control, and a task switching paradigm, to index shifting abilities. We found significant L1 interference across the lexical and syntactic domains, even in proficient different-script bilinguals. However, these interference effects were not correlated, and neither type of interference was related to domain general EF abilities. Finally, offline susceptibility to syntactic interference, but not lexical interference, was reduced with greater L2 proficiency. These results suggest at least partially independent mechanisms for managing interference in the two language domains, and raise questions regarding the degree to which domain general control abilities are recruited for managing L1 interference.

Transfer of L1 visual word recognition strategies during early stages of L2 learning: Evidence from Hebrew learners whose first language is either Semitic or Indo-European

The present study examined visual word recognition processes in Hebrew (a Semitic language) among beginning learners whose first language (L1) was either Semitic (Arabic) or Indo-European (e.g. English). To examine if learners, like native Hebrew speakers, exhibit morphological sensitivity to root and word-pattern morphemes, learners made an off-line graded lexical decision task on unfamiliar letter strings. Critically, these letter strings were manipulated to include or exclude familiar Hebrew morphemes. The results demonstrate differential morphological sensitivity as a function of participants’ language background. In particular, Indo-European-L1 learners exhibited increased sensitivity to word-pattern familiarity, with little effect of root familiarity. In contrast, Semitic-L1 learners exhibited non-additive sensitivity to both morphemes. Specifically, letter strings with a familiar root and a familiar word-pattern were the most likely to be judged as real words by this L1-Semitic group, whereas strings with a familiar root in the absence of a familiar word-pattern were the most likely to lead to a non-word decision. These findings show that both groups of learners activate their morphological knowledge in Hebrew in order to process unfamiliar Hebrew words. Critically, the findings further demonstrate transfer of L1 word recognition processes during the initial stages of second language (L2) learning.

Tip-of-the-tongue in a second language: The effects of brief first-language exposure and long-term use

Bilinguals have more tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) incidents than monolinguals. Whereas previous research has focused on differences in the long term language experience between these groups, the present study examined the hypothesis that both long-term and transient context factors modulate TOT rates. Russian-Hebrew bilinguals who acquired Hebrew either early (<5years) or late (>11years) were compared to native Hebrew speakers on a picture naming task in Hebrew, before and after viewing a short movie in Russian. Both the short-term context (before-after the movie) and long-term language experience modulated TOT rates: Late bilinguals exhibited significantly higher TOT rates than early bilinguals who did not significantly differ from native Hebrew speakers. Critically, following the Russian movie, bilinguals in both groups differed from the native speakers of the target language. Thus, exposure to the non-target language exerted a global, non-item-specific, cross-language interference effect. The findings highlight the dynamic nature of the bilingual system in which both short and long-term language experience operate to influence bilingual performance.

Translation semantic variability: How semantic relatedness affects learning of translation-ambiguous words

Translations often do not align directly across languages, and indirect mappings reduce the accuracy of language learning. To facilitate examination of this issue, we developed a new continuous measure for quantifying the semantic relatedness of words with more than one translation (hereafter translation-ambiguous words). Participants rated the similarity of each translation to every other translation, yielding a Translation Semantic Variability (TSV) score, ranging from 1.00 (unrelated) to 7.00 (related). Then, we determined how relatedness between translations affects translation-ambiguous word learning from German to English. German words with low TSV scores were recognized as translations more slowly and less accurately than German words with high TSV scores. TSV explains unique variance beyond the previously-used dichotomous classification of words as form vs. meaning ambiguous. We propose that the relatedness of the translation alternatives influences learning because it affects the ease with which a one-to-one mapping can be established between form and meaning.