Electrophysiological Correlates of Repetition and Translation Priming in Different Script Bilinguals Noriko Hoshino 1, Katherine J. Midgley 1,2, Phillip J. Holcomb 1, & Jonathan Grainger 2 Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 1 ; Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive-CNRS, Université de Provence, Marseille 2 Results L2 English targets Repetition and translation priming, reflected by a smaller N250 and N400 for related primes Both N250 and N400 components start earlier for repetition priming than for translation priming L1 Japanese targets Only repetition priming, reflected by a smaller N250 and N400 for related primes Compared to repetition priming in L2 English, the N250 starts earlier and the N400 ends earlier. Method Participants 18 Japanese-English bilinguals Age: M = 27.3 years, SD = 3.4 years Age of L2 acquisition: M = 10.1 years, SD = 3.3 years Length of living in English speaking countries: M = 40.8 months, SD = 29.6 months L1 self-rating (7-pt scale): M = 6.8, SD = 0.4 L2 self-rating (7-pt scale): M = 4.9, SD = 0.7 Task Go/no-go semantic categorization blocked by language of targets Materials L2 English block 220 L2 English targets Related L2 English primes (angel – ANGEL) Unrelated L2 English primes (diary – ANGEL) Related L1 Japanese primes ( 天使 – ANGEL) Unrelated L1 Japanese primes ( 日記 – ANGEL) 40 L2 English body part probes 40 L2 English fillers L1 Japanese block 220 L1 Japanese targets Related L1 Japanese primes ( 天使 – 天使 ) Unrelated L1 Japanese primes ( 日記 – 天使 ) Related L2 English primes (angel – 天使 ) Unrelated L2 English primes (diary – 天使 ) 40 L1 Japanese body part probes 40 L2 English fillers Note. All the items were noncognates. Therefore, there was no phonological overlap across two languages. Background There is resonance among the lexical codes across two languages even when only one language is required. How do these lexical codes interact?  Masked Priming Paradigm The processing of the target is sensitive to the preactivation of the prime. Together with ERPs, it allows us to analyze the time course of processes in word recognition in a fine- grained manner.  Locus of Translation Priming Conceptual level (e.g., Grainger & Frenck-Mestre, 1998; Finkbeiner et al., 2004; Perea et al., 2008) Lexical level (e.g., Gollan et al., 1997; Jiang, 1999) Phonological level (e.g., Brysbaert et al., 1999) Depends on the degree to which lexical codes are more critical in making a response (e.g., Kim & Davis, 2003) References Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., & Van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system : From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, Gollan, T., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, Grainger, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of visual word recognition: An event-related potential investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 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, Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (submitted). Fast masked repetition and translation priming: A window on the time-course of form and meaning activation using ERPs. Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Masked associative/semantic priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, ms 50 ms 30 ms 500 ms 800 ms 1500 ms ANGEL ( ) 天使 L2 prime – L2 target******* L1 prime – L2 target** ***** L1 prime – L1 target*********** *** L2 prime – L1 target L2 English Block Repetition Priming Translation Priming N250 N400 N250 N400 L1 Japanese Block Repetition PrimingTranslation Priming N250 N400 Time Course Analysis * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001 Present Study Investigate the locus of translation priming by using masked priming and ERPs ERP components of interest N250: Sublexical-lexical interface N400: Form-meaning interface Predictions If the locus of translation priming is at the lexical level, the N250 amplitude will be smaller for the translation prime than for the unrelated prime. If the locus of translation priming is at the conceptual level, the N400 amplitude will be smaller for the translation prime than for the unrelated prime. Compare cross-language translation priming with within-language repetition priming If the N250 component reflects both sublexical and lexical processing, the N250 effect will start earlier for repetition priming than for translation priming. From Holcomb & Grainger, 2006 Discussion The modulation of both N250 and N400 amplitudes by translation priming suggests that there is not a single locus of translation priming. Translation priming occurs at both lexical and conceptual levels. The earlier onset of the N250 effect for repetition priming in L2 than translation priming in L2 supports the assumption that the N250 component reflects not only lexical processing but also sublexical processing, which is facilitated by repetition priming but not by translation priming. The time courses of repetition priming in L1 and in L2 suggest that the absence of L2-L1 translation priming can be due to the difference in the speed of processing between L1 and L2. These results can be explained by the BIA+ model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002) which includes semantic representations as well as lexical and sublexical representations. One alternative is that the N250 effect in the L1-L2 priming reflects feedback from semantics to lemmas. If the locus of translation priming is only at the conceptual level, the lack of L2- L1 priming could be due to the stronger lexical link from L2 to L1, which is predicted by the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994). The delayed peak of the N250 component in the L2 repetition priming suggests that the activation of orthography which differs from L1 incurs processing costs (cf., Midgley et al., submitted). On the other hand, the delay in the L1 repetition priming may be due to the Japanese writing system (kanji). Acknowledgment: NIH Grant R01 HD to Phillip Holcomb Contact: