Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: Evidence from semantic relatedness tasks [Experiment 1]

These materials were used for Experiment 1 of Poort and Rodd's (2019) paper "Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: Evidence from semantic relatedness tasks". The aim was to investigate the cognate facilitation and interlingual homograph inhibition effect with a semantic relatedness task.

From Poort and Rodd (2019): "The aim of Experiment 1 was to examine semantic processing of cognates and interlingual homographs and to determine whether the cognate facilitation effect and interlingual homograph inhibition effect observed in lexical decision are a result of how these words are stored in the bilingual lexicon or whether they are merely (lexical decision) task artefacts. A group of native monolingual British English speakers performed the same experiment as a group of Dutch–English bilinguals to rule out the possibility that the effects seen in the bilingual group were due to pre-existing differences between the three word types. To further minimise the role that language membership information would play in the semantic relatedness task (for example by prompting the bilingual participants to adopt a more bilingual language processing mode; Grosjean, 1998; Soares & Grosjean, 1984), Experiment 1 was advertised and conducted entirely in the language of the task (English), so that the Dutch–English bilinguals would not assume that their knowledge of the stimuli in Dutch would be relevant to the task.

...

[The experiment] comprised two (for the monolinguals) or three (for the bilinguals) separate tasks: (1) the English semantic relatedness task, (2) the English version of the LexTALE (Lemhöfer & Broersma, 2012) and, for the bilingual participants only, (3) the Dutch version of the LexTALE (Lemhöfer & Broersma, 2012). As mentioned previously, the bilingual participants were not told that they were being recruited because of their status as native Dutch speakers or that Dutch would be in any way relevant to the experiment, until after they had completed the semantic relatedness task. To achieve this, the consent form at the start of the experiment was in English, as was the study description on Prolific. At the end of the experiment, the participants completed a self-report language background survey (in Dutch for the bilinguals or English for the monolinguals). The answers to these questions were used to verify eligibility (see the Participants section)."

The stimuli and processing scripts are also available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ndb7p/.

Back to Open Materials


Complete experiment for bilingual participants

This is the version of the experiment that the bilingual participants completed. Note: parts of this experiment (anything after the English semantic relatedness task) are in Dutch.

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)


Complete experiment for monolingual participants

This is the version of the experiment that the monolingual participants completed.

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)


English semantic relatedness task

The English semantic relatedness task was the main task of the experiment. It was identical for both the bilingual and monolingual participants. Participants were presented with two words, one after the other, and asked to indicate whether the two words were related to each other not.

From Poort and Rodd (2019): "The semantic relatedness task was identical for the bilingual and monolingual participants. During the semantic relatedness task, the participants saw all 150 related target–probe pairs (“yes”-responses) and all 150 unrelated filler–probe pairs (“no”-responses) and were asked to indicate, by means of a button press, as quickly and accurately as possible, whether the word they saw first was related in meaning to the word they saw second. A practice block of 6 pairs was followed by 6 blocks of 50 experimental pairs. The order of the pairs within blocks was randomised for each participant, as was the order of the blocks. As a lead in, three filler pairs were presented at the beginning of each block (these were additional to the 150 filler pairs described above), with a 15-second break after each block. The target or filler item would appear first on screen and remain for 200 ms. After a blank screen lasting 50 ms, the probe appeared. The probe remained on screen until the participant responded or until 2500 ms passed. A warning was presented to the participant that they were responding too slowly if they had not responded 2000 ms after the probe first appeared. The warning remained on screen for 500 ms, during which time the participant could still respond. The inter-trial interval was 1000 ms."

Explanation of the different trial set-ups:

  • instructions: presents instructions for the task.
  • practice: trial set-up for a practice trial (with feedback on speed and accuracy performance).
  • continue: briefly repeats the instructions again after the practice block.
  • filler: trial set-up for the first three trials of each block. These items were lead-in fillers which we did not include in the analyses. This is the same trial set-up as "main", but giving it a different name in Gorilla allowed us to filter these trials out of the data more easily.
  • main: trial set-up for an experimental item.
  • break: 15-second break.

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)


English LexTALE

This is a speeded version of Lemhöfer and Broersma's (2012) English LexTALE task. The stimuli and instructions were taken from Lemhöfer and Broersma's (2012), but in keeping with the other task in the experiment, which was also speeded, a 2000 ms time limit for responding was added.

From the LexTALE website: "The LexTALE is a quick and practically feasible test of vocabulary knowledge for medium to highly proficient speakers of English as a second language. It consists of a simple un-speeded[1] visual lexical decision task. In contrast to other vocabulary or proficiency tests, it has been designed to meet the needs of cognitive researchers. It is quick, easy to administer, and free, and yet it is a valid and standardized test of vocabulary knowledge. It has also been shown to give a fair indication of general English proficiency."

[1] But note that we added a 2000 ms time limit.

Gorilla Open Materials Attribution-NonCommerical Research-Only


Lemhöfer, K. & Broersma, M. Behavior Research Methods (2012) 44(2), 325-343. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0.
www.lextale.com


Dutch LexTALE

This is a speeded version of Lemhöfer and Broersma's (2012) Dutch LexTALE task. The stimuli and instructions were taken from Lemhöfer and Broersma's (2012), but in keeping with the other task in the experiment, which was also speeded, a 2000 ms time limit for responding was added.

From the LexTALE website: "The LexTALE is a quick and practically feasible test of vocabulary knowledge for medium to highly proficient speakers of English as a second language. It consists of a simple un-speeded[1] visual lexical decision task. In contrast to other vocabulary or proficiency tests, it has been designed to meet the needs of cognitive researchers. It is quick, easy to administer, and free, and yet it is a valid and standardized test of vocabulary knowledge. It has also been shown to give a fair indication of general English proficiency."

[1] But note that we added a 2000 ms time limit.

Gorilla Open Materials Attribution-NonCommerical Research-Only


Lemhöfer, K. & Broersma, M. Behavior Research Methods (2012) 44(2), 325-343. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0.
www.lextale.com

Preferred Citation Poort ED, Rodd JM. 2019. Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: Evidence from semantic relatedness tasks. PeerJ 7:e6725.
http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6725
Poort, E. D., & Rodd, J. M. (2019, February 26). Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: Evidence from semantic relatedness tasks.
http://psyarxiv.com/fe2k8
Conducted at University College London
Published on 15 April 2019
Corresponding author Dr Eva Poort Experimental Psychology
University College London

eva.poort.12@ucl.ac.uk