Cover not available
Article published In:
APTIF 9 - Reality vs. Illusion: From Morse code to machine translation
Edited by Frans De Laet, In-kyoung Ahn and Joong-chol Kwak
[Babel 66:4/5] 2020
► pp. 570–587

How does the language acquisition period affect simultaneous interpreters’ language processing?

| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
This study aims to identify the similarities and differences in cognitive-psychological semantic (Translation Equivalent) mapping employed by early, and late balanced bilinguals at the adult level. The subjects of lexical-semantic recognition tasks were limited to fourth-semester learners at graduate school of interpreting and translation to analyze the effect that the L2 acquisition period (or Age of Acquisition, AOA) and immersive education may have on cross-language processing among highly-proficient bilinguals. The experimental words were composed of non-cognate abstract words with two levels, and in four language directions (L1 > L1, L1 > L2, L2 > L1, L2 > L2) to compare monolingual, and bilingual priming effects. Early, and Late Balanced Bilingual groups (i.e., EBB and LBB) were comparable in many ways. However, mid balanced bilinguals who had exposure of more than six years after the critical period showed distinctive features. With a low lexical difficulty in the L1 to L2 direction, Mid Balanced Bilingual group (MBB) showed a similar tendency with EBB, while it was analogous to LBB when the lexical difficulty was high, and the language direction was from L2 to L1. Such results can be interpreted as evidence against the critical period hypothesis, indicating that language dominance may change due to the L2 acquisition period and immersive education. In contrast to their subjective perception, the mother tongue of all subject groups turned out to be Korean since all subjects, without exception, were faster in deciding words from English to Korean. The parental factor was limited to be all Koreans in order to control biological differences, from which the parental factor is reversely inferred most influential for early balanced bilinguals’ language dominance.
Keywords: bilingualism, critical period, language acquisition, L2 immersion, semantic priming effect, revised hierarchical model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical backgrounds
    • 2.1Who are balanced bilinguals?
    • 2.2Bilingual lexical processing and semantic representation
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Material
    • 3.3Apparatus and procedures
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Is the Revised Hierarchical Model supported in the abstract condition for balanced bilinguals?
    • 4.2What factors affect bilingual language processing?
  • 5.Discussions and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 25 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00177.han
References (36)
References
Altarriba, Jeanette. 1992. “The representation of translation equivalents in bilingual memory”. In Advances in psychology, vol. 831, 157–174. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Altarriba, Jeanette; and Katherine M. Mathis. 1997. “Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition”. Journal of memory and language 36 (4): 550–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, Dana M.; and Jeanette Altarriba. 2007. “Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance”. Memory and cognition 35 (5): 953–965. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York (NY): Holt.Google Scholar
Butler, Yuko G.; and Kenji Hakuta. 2004. “Bilingualism and second language acquisition”. In The handbook of bilingualism, ed. by Tej K. Bhatia; and William C. Ritchie, 114–144. Malden (MA): Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B.; and Gerard L. J. Nas. 1991. “Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals”. Journal of memory and language 30 (1): 90–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B.; Lucia Dannenburg; and Janet G. Van Hell. 1994. “Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals”. Journal of memory and language 33 (5): 600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitropoulou, Maria; Jon Andoni Duñabeitia; and Manuel Carreiras. 2011. “Masked translation priming effects with low proficient bilinguals”. Memory and cognition 39 (2): 260–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duyck, Wouter; and Nele Warlop. 2009. “Translation priming between the native language and a second language: New evidence from Dutch-French bilinguals”. Experimental Psychology 56 (3): 173–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Matthew; Kenneth Forster; Janet Nicol; and Kumiko Nakamura. 2004. “The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming”. Journal of memory and language 51 (1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 1977. “The social science perspective”. Bilingual education: Current perspectives, 11: 14–62.Google Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I.; and Chris Davis. 1984. “Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access”. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10 (4): 680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, Fred; Josiane Hamers; Wallace E. Lambert; L. Mononen; M. Seitz; and R. Starck. 1978. “Language processing in bilinguals”. Brain and language 5 (1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gollan, Tamar H.; Kenneth I. Forster; and Ram Frost. 1997. “Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23 (5): 1122–1139.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamers, J. F.; and Blanc, M. H. A. 2000. Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Seunghee. 2017. “Comparing the perceived text difficulties between early balanced bilinguals and late balanced bilinguals [국내파와 해외파간 텍스트 난이도 인식 비교]”. In The Fall conference of the Korean Association for Translation Studies, 150–156. Seoul: The Korean Association for Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Heredia, Roberto R. 1996. Concreteness effects in high frequency words: A test of the revised hierarchical and the mixed models of bilingual memory representations. PhD diss. Oakland (CA): University of California.Google Scholar
1997. “Bilingual memory and hierarchical models: A case for language dominance”. Current Directions in Psychological Science 6 (2): 34–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heredia, Roberto R.; and Jeanette Altarriba. 2001. “Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 10 (5): 164–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Nan. 1999. “Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2 (1): 59–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Nan; and Kenneth I. Forster. 2001. “Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition”. Journal of memory and language 44 (1): 32–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. H. 2003. Words by levels for teaching Korean [등급별 국어교육용 어휘]. Seoul: Pakijung.Google Scholar
Kim, Jeesun; and Chris Davis. 2003. “Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming”. Journal of memory and language 49 (4): 484–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Judith F.; and Alexandra Sholl. 1992. “Lexical and conceptual memory in fluent and nonfluent bilinguals”. In Advances in psychology, vol. 831, 191–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F.; and Erika Stewart. 1994. “Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations”. Journal of memory and language 33 (2): 149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Judith F.; and Natasha Tokowicz. 2001. “The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language”. One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing 21: 49–71.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E. 1974. “Culture and language as factors in learning and education”. In Cultural factors in learning and education, ed. by Aboud, F. E.; and Meade, R. D., 91–122. Bellingham (WA): Western Washington State University.Google Scholar
Peal, E.; and Lambert, W. E. 1962. “The relation of bilingualism to intelligence”. Psychological Monographs: general and applied 76 (27): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Mary C.; Kwok-Fai So; Barbara Von Eckardt; and Laurie B. Feldman. 1984. “Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals”. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 23 (1): 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonbaert, Sofie; Wouter Duyck; Marc Brysbaert; and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2009. “Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings”. Memory and cognition 37 (5): 569–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdés, G.; and Figueroa, R. A. 1994. Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. New York (NY): Ablex Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, Janet G.; and Annette M.B. De Groot. 1998. “Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association”. Bilingualism: Language and cognition 1 (3): 193–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Xin. 2013. “Language dominance in translation priming: Evidence from balanced and unbalanced Chinese–English bilinguals”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66 (4): 727–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Xin; and Kenneth I. Forster. 2010. “Masked translation priming with semantic categorization: Testing the Sense Model”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (3): 327–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar