The Effects of Semantic Priming in Early

Versus Late Bilinguals Versus Learners

Jennifer Weiss
Senior Thesis Project
for
Cognitive Science

Vassar College
1994-1995
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Janet Andrews, my advisor, for her encouragement and guidance,
to Doug Winblad for being my second reader, Carol Christensen for her
emergency lessons, Debbie Ratchford, Richard Lowry for his numbers,
Marta Kutas, all my gracious volunteer subjects, my housemates for their
support and patience, Marisa Arias for her knowledge of Spanish,
and lastly to my parents for more than just the tuition payments.
 1

Semantic Priming in Early versus Late Bilinguals:

An Inyestigation of Bilingual Language Processing

Jennifer L. Weiss

ABSTRACT: Studies have shown the effect of semantic priming in monolinguals. A recent area of study
isthe use of ERP's in order to note the neurological activity involved in semantic priming. This experiment
investigateddifferences in bilinguals (early vs. late vs. learning) with respect to semantic priming. The
studytested across language priming as well as within language priming. The hypomesls was that early
bilingualsprocess on a semantic level so they prime more easily, while late bilinguals and learners do
surfacelevel processing and therefore show less of an effect of semantic priming. Therefore, it was
expectedthat the early bilinguals would display a more significantly reduced N400 than the late bilinguals
andboth would show a greater reduction of N400 than the learners.

INTRODUCTION:

This study intends to investigate the effect of semantic priming within and across-

languages for Spanish-English early bilinguals, late bilinguals, and students who

haveonly recently begun stUdying Spanish. The idea behind the study is twofold. If

achieved, the expected results would support a theory of how a person encodes two

languages at an early age versus how they encode a second language at a later age.

The study would also encourage investigations with larger implications, results that

wouldtell something not only about a critical period in bilingual language acquisition,

butalso critical period and language acquisition in general. The current study is

basedon the idea that there is a critical period for language acquisition and that

peoplewho learn a second language at an early age have more interconnected

languages, whereas people who learn a second language at a later age are, in a

sense,having to work with what is already set up by the first language and by other

processes like memory.

Language acquisition is a broad field of study, within which there is a constant

vacillation back and forth between the neurobiology and the psychology of language.

A variety of theories have been formed which attempt to describe language

development in terms of stages. These theories, however, merely describe the

apparentbehavior of a child. The current study is one which intends to aid in the
 2

investig~tionof more of the details of how the brain actually encodes language based

onphysiological phenomena not just behavioral ones. It is important to note that these

modelsof behavior are certainly not insignificant and can prove useful when used in

coordinationwith the abundance of modern data such as that provided by

electrophysiological and neurological investigations. The issue of linguistic

developmenthas many voices. One important issue of language development has

been:how rigid is the brain with regard to particular parts of the brain being

designatedfor particular tasks? levy and colleagues (1992) studied a child who had

a localized lesion in the left hemisphere as an infant and found evidence that supports

the"plasticity model". The plasticity model is a theory that the brain has great plasticity

forlanguage and if there is damage to one part of the brain, often other parts of the

brainare able to make up for the loss. The child studied by levy et at, apparently had

linguisticabilities, including making the same kinds of grammatical errors, as normal

childrenhis age (levy et aI., 1992, p 23-24), despite the damage to parts of the brain

thatare known to be important for language and do cause language disorders when

damagedin adulthood. The biggest problem with the levy study is that the child was

studiedat an early age and so it is difficult to know, without waiting until he is older, if

hisabilities will consistently be at about the same level as those of his peers. But the

caseis initial evidence for plasticity of the brain with respect to language acquisition.

Another important issue within the field has been the question of lateralization.

Manyhave tried to find out which cerebral hemisphere is involved in which parts of

language. Especially with regard to bilingualism there has been much bickering back

andforth about whether or not bilinguals have the same proportional usage of the left

hemisphereas monolinguals (Paradis, 1990; Paradis, 1992; Berquier and Ashton,

1992). For the purpose of the current study, the importance of lateralization is only

pertinentas it may provide clues to how language is encoded in the brain of an early

versusa late bilingual. Perhaps it would be more useful to begin by looking at

 3

lateralization effects in monolinguals. Data such as that provided by Ojemann and

Mateer(1979) begin to give insight into how and where the brain stores language.

Theyconclude that "phylogenetic development of language is characterized by the

appearance of lateralized sequential motor and memory systems" (Ojemann and

Mateer,1979, p. 1403). The brain is not made of two hemispheres that mirror one

anotherand language involves many other functions such as memory and motor skills.

Thus,lateralization and other issues of localization are important topics in the field of

languageacquisition. It is essential to study the whole brain and to consider how

othertasks are involved in language so that we can pinpoint what parts of the brain

areused just for linguistic tasks and what parts are used in coordination with other

processes like motor skills.

In understanding the biological phenomena that make up language, one key

areaof study is the critical period. Most investigators agree that timing is important in

learninglanguage. The question is determining the exact age (either mental or

physicalage), if there is a specific age, when language development is at its prime.

JamesHurford suggests that the sensitive period for language acquisition ends as late

aspuberty (Hurford, 1991, p.159). A sensitive period to Hurford is a time when

exposureto language is most important because that is the time when language

processesare being developed in the brain. Yet biologically, development of

neuronalconnections is greatest in early childhood, and although there still is

developmentlater on, the majority takes place in the first years of life. The complex

structuresof the brain are formed early; fundamental connections are established

beforebirth, while after birth there is more of the same kind of neuronal development

(Fox,1983, p. 1220). In other words, later development could be imagined as a

layeringeffect where the base layer is determined before birth. Fox discusses this in

termsof learning as well as development in general by using imprinting, a more

specifickind of learning. One can think of development as experience, which entails

 .. ----,
-------

involving the present as layered on top of the recent past and both being layered on

top of the more distant past. Similarly, with imprinting the animal is born with a base

on which they record the experience. Thus, a duckling is born with the materials

necessary to imprint the image of its mother (who is presumably the first thing it is

going to see when it is born) and all it needs is that visual experience to complete a

very major connection. Fox compares this process to learning and development in

general: a child enters the world ready to add experiences to its pre-established

functions. In this way, we learn by adding experiences one on top of the other. With

language acquisition, there is much debate about whether this is the actual process

that goes on in development but it seems to me that this is at the least a good way of

talking about language acquisition, however abstract the parallel may actually be to
"
the developmental process. It is a springboard from which we can dive into the

research with some direction.

Critical period of language acquisition, which I will use interchangeably with

sensitive period in an effort to avoid aligning myself with either theory, although they

are not exactly the same, is certainly a psychological theory but corresponds nicely

withthe biological data. (A theory of an existing critical period is in a sense more strict

than that of a sensitive period, strict in that a sensitive period implies a desirable or

even ideal time to learn whereas critical period labels an essential or imperative

period during which one must learn.) Hurford reports that some research on aphasia

provides additional evidence for a critical period because it appears that children can

recover to a great extent whereas adults never fully recover their language abilities.

This would make sense given the hypothesis proposed earlier that children have more

plasticity and could possibly be reconstructing destroyed connections, whereas adults

mayhave to rely on the remaining healthy connections and use them as much as

functionally possible for processes previously performed by the now destroyed

neuronal connections.
 -"~---i

Hurford also argues that early language acquisition is an evolutionarily

plausible concept, although it would seem as if a critical period of language

acquisition may in fact limit people's abilities. In order to show that a critical period of

language acquisition is something that would develop naturally over time he creates a

set of simulated individuals, attributing specific characteristics to each, and runs them

through cycles that simulate changes such as reproduction, accidents, etc. In this

programmed evolutionary microcosm, Hurford finds critical period effects for all of the

individuals before 1000 generations. Thus, for each of the different conditions, he still

findsthat within 1000 generations each individual has had offspring who display some

kindof critical period. He uses this as evidence to show that a critical period of

language acquisition does stand the test of evolution and perseveres as an evolved

trait.

Moreover, Mayberry (1993) found the same kind of critical period effect in her

investigations of adult "speakers" of American Sign Language. The data from

Mayberry's study, however differs from the previously described data because it

studiedsubjects who were deaf from birth as well as subjects who became deaf in late

childhood. The subjects who were born deaf learned ASL during infancy to late

childhood. Those who became deaf had learned English before they lost their hearing

so ASL was considered their second language. The results were such that those

whosesecond language was ASL performed at a much higher level than those who

acquiredASL at the same age but as their first language. In other words, the deaf

subjects who began learning sign language from an early age were native ASL

signers. The subjects who learned English before they became deaf and began to

learnASL later in their lives, did not have this same mastery of the language. This is

strongevidence for a critical period of language acquisition and also enhances the

ideathat we have language abilities with some predesigned structure that are general

enoughto be applied to a completely different input/output system like signing. The

 .---.jl
! -

evidence from deaf subjects indicates that we have certain deep structures of

language that are across modalities. In any case, the study shows that there is also a

critical period for signed language. This kind of evidence is another approach to the

study of a critical period and can function as more behavioral data to supplement the

evolutionary story, which is pertinent to language in humans and aids in the effort to

come to an understanding of the neurological organization of language in the brain.

Marin notes that "observation of evolutionary trends in the organization of the cerebral

cortex, comparative anatomical studies, evolutionary patterns of change in animal

behavior along the phylogenetic scale, and, most significantly, the intense studies of

clinicopathological correlations have given us the basis for most of our present

knowledge of the brain in relation to language" (Marin, 1982, p.52).

Marcotte and Morere use a different approach in their study of language

acquisition, referring to physiological evidence of a critical period (Marcotte and

Morere, 1990). They recognize the many instances of data from deaf aphasics but

they also criticize the lack of study as to whether there is a critical period for language

lateralization effects. Their study attempts to examine the development of speech in

the left hemisphere. They found, at least in an initial investigation of the phenomenon,

thatthe age of onset of deafness had a great effect on the specialization of the left

hemisphere for speech. They used adults who had become deaf or nearly deaf after

thirty-six months of age (who were learning to speak as normal children before their

hearing loss) and found that their left cerebral hemispheres were not significantly less

specialized for processes involved in speech than those of normal adults, whereas

those adults who had become profoundly deaf before thirty-six months showed a

muchgreater bilateralization for speech. In other words, age of onset of deafness

madea significant difference in the hemispheric activity involved in speech. This is

goodevidence that the physical development of the brain is an integral part of

language development. It also raises the question of how the two hemispheres of the
 7

braintake part in language. Much of the physiological data indicate that particular

aspectsof language require activity of both hemispheres. "The cortical areas

participating in speech and language reception are frequently activated bilaterally

ratherthan unilaterally in the speech-dominant hemisphere. The findings agree with a

largebody of ERP [Event-Related Potential] components in association with language

processing" (Hillyard and Picton, 1986, pp. 559-560).

Learning more about the way language is organized in the brain is crucial to

understanding human language. Yet language is not a separate function; there are a

varietyof processes involved both directly and indirectly with language. Thus,

distinctions must be made in order to determine what parts of the brain are used

specificallyfor language. In his 1978 study of short-term verbal memory and

language,Ojemann began to draw a distinction between visual short-term memory in

thehippocampus and short-term memory in the language cortex (Ojemann, 1978).

Thestudy showed evidence for the distinction between word-memory sites and

episodicshort-term verbal memory. Ojemann concluded that some of the area

involvedin language is involved in the storing of short-term verbal memory, these

areasbeing the posterior part of the language cortex, while the anterior language

cortexis apparently involved in retrieval from short-term visual memory (Ojemann,

1978, p. 337). In a later study by Fried, Ojemann, and Fetz, similar investigations were

performedand it was concluded that "a major difference between overt speech and

covertnaming appears to be the relative involvement of motor and premotor cortex"

(Friedet aI., 1981, p. 355). The brain is a small space in which a great many events

occur. It is imperative that when investigating a particular phenomenon, the

experimentbe controlled for all variables, and all kinds of brain phenomena involved

begiven proper attention. The idea here is that there are many different processes

thatare intertwined with language and in order to find which parts of the brain do what

withrespect to language, one must also consider the many processes involved in
 8

language. If, for instance, one wishes to look for particular areas that are active in a

certain language task, the other processes involved in the task should also be

considered. It is clear that reading involves more than just the mental comprehension

of words, and with our understanding of which parts of the brain are active for ocular

processes, we can eliminate these areas as places where language processing

occurs. Similarly, a better understanding of memory that does not involve language

(such as non-language tasks using purely visual memory) can help us to pinpoint

specific areas where language is involved during a task such as one involving word

rnernorization. In other words, it is essential that language be isolated and the way to

do so is to gain knowledge of the other processes involved and how they are

organized apart from language. The more we know about the brain and its functions

that do not involve language, the more we will also know about the parts that do

involve language.

As stated earlier by Marin, much of what we know about language has come

from patients who have language-related disorders. There are a huge number of

different kinds of disorders and many of them overlap greatly. Often it is difficult to

classify a patient as having one kind of disorder. Some of the most common language

disorders, however, include Broca's aphasia and Wernicke's aphasia, which are

described by Schnitzer in "The Translation Hierarchy of Language" (Schnitzer, 1982).

Hedescribes Broca's aphasics as people who do not have a grasp of the grammatical

rulesof their language. They also experience difficulty with word production, selection

of words, initiation of motor activity, etc. Wernicke's aphasics, on the other hand, have

difficulties at the level of semantics, according to Schnitzer. Wernicke's aphasics also

display difficulty with phoneme sequence and with their representations of semantic

categories. Much of the actual description of the full functions of these areas is still

missing,though. What we know about disorders such as aphasia, enables us to tell a

general story about what is happening where in the brain, but we still cannot describe
 .. , -
9

the actual processes that are taking place with much detail, especially because in

studying disorders or brain damage, it is not always clear that there are not other

problems in other parts of the brain, for example.

Bilingualism is a topic that, like aphasia and evolutionary models, can provide

great insight into the way the brain handles language. One of the biggest questions is

howthe brain encodes two languages. Are both languages separate? Is there an

"English language" box and a "Spanish language" box which have connections

betweenthem but are pretty much kept separate? I tend to think not. Bilingualism is

notso simple as having two languages in little storage boxes. First it is imperative to

definebilingualism. Part of the motivation for this study is to do this. Someone is often

considered bilingual when he speaks two languages fluently. A more detailed

definition may refer to fluency as being able to speak and understand both languages

as if the person were monolingual. In this case, if the person's languages are at about

the same level of competency, then he or she is considered bilingual (Hamers and

Blanc,1983, pp. 15-17). Hamers and Blanc note that there are different kinds of tests

of bilingual competence and as they point out, defining bilingualism varies depending

inwhich field it is measured. There are various aspects that make up the bilingual

person:society, ethnography, geography, self-evaluation, language comparisons and

otherbehavioral data, etc. All of these are ways of determining not only a bilingual's

languagecapabilities, but also her identity as a bilingual. The intention of this paper is

to explore the biological determinations of bilingualism. The hypothesis is that a "true"

bilingualis one who has learned two languages from an early age while people who

learnlanguage after the critical period of language acquisition will only ever become

"fluent"in their second language, not fully bilingual. The distinction between "fluent"

andfully bilingual would, in this case, be a physiological one rather than a behavioral

one. Someone who is fluent can have great control over her second language, but

perhapsis slower at some language tasks than bilinguals who learned their second
 ---,
10

language before the critical period. That is not to discourage anyone from learning a

second language; it is clear that language can be learned after childhood and it can

be learned well. Yet I propose that what makes someone a true bilingual is a

physiological difference in how his two languages are encoded. The word "bilingual"

implies two equal languages, which late bilinguals presumably do not have according

to this biological definition of bilingualism. If we could show that people who learn a

second language an earlier age handle their languages differently than do people

who learned a second language at a later age, not only would it support the

hypothesis that there is a critical period for second language acquisition, but it would

help in moving toward an understanding of language acquisition more generally.

With these predictions, and basing our growing understanding of the brain and

of cognitive processes in general as described up until now, we can come up with an

initial hypothesis about bilingualism. If indeed particular areas of the brain have

designated functions as the evidence seems to indicate, and there is a critical period

of language acquisition, then it seems as if a second language learned at a young age

(atthe "right" age) has a particular development parallel in many senses, to the

developing structure of the first language in the brain. What I mean by this is that the

language or languages learned at an early age is what is built up from a predesigned

foundation that is the newly formed brain. Certainly there are many innate processes;

infantsare not born without anything in their heads. Infants are born with the ability to

perform many functions, but with respect to language they are born with the potential

to acquire language and they are born with many preset structures for language. Their

language abilities depend on the stimulation received from their surroundings which

providethe experience necessary to develop advanced language skills. Breathnach

explains that "language development depends on the strengthening and weakening of

synaptic populations on dendritic assemblies within parallel groups of neurons in the

cerebral cortex by dynamic selection", a process which declines gradually after age
 -----, ,

11

two (Breathnach, 1993, p. 45). This implies that both a first language and a second

language would develop together in the brain if learned at an early age but a second

language learned at an older age must be forced to fit into the neural structure

designed in early childhood when the child learned its first language. This theory is

meantto be taken as a oversimplified version of what is happening in the brain, but

can be used as a basis for investigations.

Evidence for this theory comes again from disorders such as aphasia. The most

significant support of this theory is an eighteen year old patient who had brain damage

at age four (Van Lieshout et aI., 1990). This young girl had a radiation lesion in her left

thalamic and temporal region which caused problems with short-term auditory

memory, auditory word comprehension, nonword repetition, as well as fluency and

namingdifficulties (Van Lieshout et aI., 1990, p.184-185). The most interesting feature

ofthis patient's deficits is that she had the same problems with both of her two

languages (English and Dutch) despite the fact that she learned Dutch after the

radiation lesion. This could be used as evidence for the theory of bilingualism just

proposed. The girl began to learn Dutch at the age of six and a half, so she would be

considered an early bilingual. It seems that if she had begun to learn a second

language at this early age, she would have been able to compensate for the damage

because of the plasticity of the brain described earlier, assuming the brain is still

developing at that age (which is in fact not certain). Yet she could not; the Dutch she

learnedsuffered the same problems as her English suffered from the brain damage,

which suggests that there were fundamental language processes destroyed which

couldnot be overcome by learning a second language after the damage was done.

Thisis a good indication that there are designated areas for language where, for

instance,grammar and vocabulary are stored. It is also contrary to the plasticity model

(unlessperhaps the development and plasticity of the brain is either slowed or

stoppedaltogether earlier than age six). The patient's "assigned language areas"
 12

were what suffered from the lesion, thus she lost some of her abilities in English and

could not later succeed with some aspects of Dutch because those overall language

processes were no longer functioning properly. The greatest information learned from

this subject is that there are indeed shared language "areas" for the different

languages of an early bilingual.

The patient described above is one subject who begins to help us paint a

picture of language acquisition and of how it is that the brain handles language. We

startto wonder about these possible differences between early and late bilinguals.

There is certainly evidence that there is some kind of difference, presumably

physiological, between people who learn a language at an early age and those who

learna second language at a later age. Again, it is assumed that this has to do with
"
biological development and some kind of critical period of language acquisition.

There is evidence from all different realms that support this and provide evidence for

different kinds of bilingualism that depend on learning the second language during the

critical period. Vaid uses evidence from previous researchers as well as an

investigation of visual field asymmetries to argue that late bilinguals process words in

their second language at a more surface level (Vaid, 1987). Vaid cites a study by

Genesee et al. where the investigators found that late bilinguals could identify in which

language a word was presented faster than earlier bilinguals could. The late

bilinguals displayed earlier neural responses in their right hemisphere during this

language identification task while early bilinguals showed faster responses in the left

hemisphere. Vaid's study finds a right visual field superiority for late bilinguals while

nosuch effect was found for either early bilinguals nor for the rnonolinqual group

(Vaid, 1987, p. 273). This evidence was interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that

late bilinguals processing at a more surface level while early bilinguals are perhaps

processing at a more semantic level. Semantic level processing means processing at

the level of the representation or symbol as opposed to processing at the surface level
 _.---.i1
.~.•
..!~

13

which refers to a focus on the syntactic features of an object or word. Vaid points out

that "this orientation to meaning may have developed in early bilinguals as a way of

overcoming the potential interference created by having to attribute two symbols to any

given referent" (Vaid, 1987, p. 275).

Johnson and Newport (1991) approach the issue of a critical period from a

different angle. These authors attempted to investigate critical period and maturational

effects on the ability to learn universal properties of language. In their conclusion they

argued for a critical period, claiming, "linguistic universals such as subjacency become

less accessible to the language learner with increasing maturation" (Johnson and

Newport, 1991, p. 254). Meanwhile, Magiste (1992) offers additional evidence for a

critical period by examining elementary school-age children to high school students.

"
Shefound that it takes younger children less time to become bilingual than older

children, as measured by a picture naming task. This study was of German children

who came to live in Sweden. Other studies of different languages include Johnson

and Newport's (1989) reference to Korean and Chinese speakers who entered the

United States at an early age as having a significant advantage over those who

entered after puberty (Johnson and Newport, 1989). In their study they noted several

things, one of which is that children are better at learning a second language than

adults (Johnson and Newport, 1989, p. 89). The second point was that their data

indicated that "subjects who arrived in the United States before the age of seven

reached native performance on the test" where as "for arrivals after that age, there was

a linear decline in performance up through puberty" (Johnson and Newport, 1989, p.

90). Yet the subjects who arrived after puberty did not seem to show this decreasing
abilitywith age; they simply all performed at a much lower level than those who had

arrived before puberty.

Another article of interest is one by Berthier and colleagues, in which a subject

displayed aphasia with respect to both of his two languages after having diluted
 .." ...........•••••...
:::1,

14

amobarbital injected into his left middle cerebral artery (Berthier et aI., 1990, p. 452).

The authors explain that by the way the patient reacted, first speaking in English and

then only being able to speak his native language Spanish after 52 seconds after the

injection, implies that in the subject "English was represented in the central Sylvian

core of the left hemisphere, while Spanish was better represented in the more distal

perisylvian regions" (Berthier et aI., 1990, p. 452). The interesting part of this study

was that the subject was a late bilingual who had learned English as his second

language while in high school. Thus, the separation of the two languages in the brain

inthis case was an actual physical one for this late bilingual. It is not clear that this is

the case for all late bilinguals and it would also be important to do research to see if

early bilinguals display a different reaction to this kind of injection. Unfortunately, the

cases in which this kind of injection is necessary are not abundant. Yet it is

encouraging that actual biological data such as this one subject indicate a separation

of the two languages, and it can be used as a stepping stone towards a theory of late

versus early bilingualism.

Thus, the evidence seems to indicate that there is a critical period for language

acquisition, including second acquisition. This both enhances the probability of a

critical period for language in general and leads to more interesting questions

regarding bilingualism. One topic of interest in language studies is an effect called

semantic priming. The idea behind the current study is that perhaps the semantic

priming effect can be used to investigate differences between early and late bilinguals.

Semantic priming was first measured by reaction time where subjects were given a list

of word pairs and were asked later to recognize words that were in this list in another

list. The research showed that people's reaction times were faster for words which

were semantically related to the words they followed than for words which followed

unrelated words. This effect has been labelled the semantic priming effect. The idea

isthat people are better at learning words if they are "primed" by a related word.
 •

> ---

15

Holcombexplains, "Semantic priming can be characterized as resulting, at least

partially,from the spread of activation from a recently accessed lexical item (cat) to the

detectorof the target item of interest (dog), so that when the target word is actually

presenteda short time later, its detector is "primed" or closer to its recognition

threshold. An implicit assumption of this type of contextual priming effect is that the

lexiconis organized semantically" (Holcomb, 1993, p. 48). In most simplistic terms,

semanticpriming is simply making it easier to access one word by first stating another

thatis related. It is as if by saying the word "cat", the ANIMAL "box" is opened so that

whenthe next word is "dog", it is easier to get at because the "box" is already open.

More recently, semantic priming has been analyzed thanks to technological

advancements. Because of technology, our ability to recognize and study mental

phenomena has changed drastically. Physiological measures such as event-related

potentials(ERPs), have given new insight into the field of psychology. We now have

theability to better investigate patients with disorders to discover what the brain is all

about,and we can also study healthy subjects as well. We can study normal

functioningof the brain in ways we could not just a few years ago. We can study

normalpatients in comparison to brain damaged subjects and we can investigate the

differences in normal subjects. These differences in subjects are called individual

variation,which is most definitely an issue of concern. Ojemann (1991) notes that in

somestudies there are differences between men and women, while other studies add

thatvariation in language abilities is directly correlated with differences in each

languagecortex. In Ojemann's earlier study (Ojemann, 1978), a concern would be

thatperhaps different people react differently to electrical stimulation. In his study,

Ojemannuses patients who suffer from epilepsy. This is a variable that may have had

aneffect on the results and it is difficult to say that the results can indeed generalize to

therest of the population. For these kinds of reasons, it is difficult to study language

functionsin the brain overall because of the variance among individuals. Yet many
 16

distinctions can and have been drawn. Studies such as those using

electrophysiological data, for example, provide better and more controlled evidence

because they are more flexible as to who may be tested. That is, a very particular

group can be used or a wide variety of individuals can be tested. And the data is more

generalizable. Thus, measures such as event-related potentials have provided us

withthe ability to take a giant leap forward in our endeavors within the field of

psychology and cognitive science.

Event-related potentials (ERPs) measure brain activity at particular sites in

reference to a controlled presentation of a stimulus. "ERPs are recordings of the

electric field which the brain produces in fixed time-relation to an event" (Brandeis and

Lehmann, 1986, p. 151). They are useful because they can be used to determine

wherethe brain is active for different kinds of processes. They can also be recorded to

determine whether a person responds more to one kind of stimuli than another. ERPs

are measured from electrodes placed at different sites on the scalp, attached with a gel

that is both cohesive and conductive. Subjects are presented tasks while the

electrodes are on their heads, and as they participate in the activities the electrodes

canmeasure how much activity there is in the brain at particular times relative to, for

example,the presentation of a stimulus. In the case of the current study, the subjects

listenedto a list of words while the ERP measured their brain activity at seven different

electrodesites: Fz, Cz, Pz, P3, P4, T5, and T6 (see Appendix A).

To interpret ERP data, many different kinds of tests can be applied. For

instance,some studies require measures such as peak latency or area under the

curve. Some compare peak amplitude at a particular point in time while others

averageover a period of time. This study used mean amplitude as the measure; mean

amplitude is the average amplitude over a particular time period, called an epoch.

Thiskind of measure can be used to compare across subjects or for different kinds of

stimuli. ERP data can be interpreted in many different ways depending on how one
---- ----

17

choosesto. analyze it and what kinds of variables are involved. The study of language

hasmost definitely benefitted from this kind of technology. ERPs have often been

usedto find physiological similarities and differences in peoples' responses to

languagetasks. Brandeis and Lehmann note that because of the invention of

electrophysiological data collection, theories such as one proposed by Osgood in

1952, can now be tested with more concrete investigations (Brandeis and Lehmann,

1986, p. 156). Brandeis and Lehmann explain that in a study using ERPs, Chapman

andcolleagues found evidence which "suggested that similar neurophysiological

representations of connotative meaning exist across subjects, paralleling the

universality of the Osgood scales at the behavioral level" (Brandeis and Lehmann,

1986, p. 156). Similarly, behavioral studies of memory and language led into later

ERP studies of the same phenomena. From ERP studies it was determined that a

positivecomponent at 300 milliseconds after presentation of a stimulus (P300) varies

accordingto the probability of the stimulus as expected by the subject. In other words,

changesin P300 are often the result of some kind of unexpected perceptual stimulus.

Inone study cited by Brandeis and Lehmann (1986) incongruous words were

presentedat the end of a sentence and instead of finding an expected effect of P300,

theauthors found a a negative effect at about 400 ms after the stimulus was presented

(N400) (Brandeis and Lehmann, 1986, p. 156). This finding has lead to a great deal of

furtherstudy of N400.

In the past it was recognized that in certain word recognition tasks it takes

peopleless time to recognize a target word that has previously been presented

followinga related word than for a target word that has been presented following an

unrelatedword. In other words, "RTs [Reaction Times] are slower to name or classify a

targetword (e.g., dog) when it is preceded by an unrelated context (e.g., the word car)

thanwhen it is preceded by a related context (e.g., the word cat)" (Holcomb, 1993, p.

47). This difference was named the "semantic priming effect" and is still used to
 ~

-- ,

18

describeour greater success at learning words when they are followed by

semantically related words than when they are followed by unrelated ones. Holcomb

describes, "Semantic priming can be characterized as resulting, at least partially, from

thespread of activation from a recently accessed lexical item (cat) to the detector of the

targetitem of interest (dog), so that when the target word is actually presented a short

timelater, its detector is "primed" or close to its recognition threshold" (Holcomb, 1993,

p.48). As Hillyard and Picton tell us, a study was done where the authors were

lookingat ERP measures of a person's reaction to a word unrelated categorically to

thelist of words in which the incongruous word was presented (Hillyard and Picton,

1986, p.568). What Hillyard and Picton report is that the investigators found a greater

N400for these unrelated words and thus proposed that N400 was a measure of

reactionto semantic relatedness. Using this finding along with the study cited earlier,

researchbegan into how N400 was related to semantics. Hillyard and Picton continue

totell us of a study, similar to the task described earlier where sentences were

presentedwith unexpected words at the end of them, only in this new study there was

acomparison of N400 amplitudes for unexpected words that were unrelated to the

sentencecompared with amplitudes for unexpected words that were actually related to

theword that was expected. What they found was that "the N400 wave was smaller

whenthe unexpected words were semantically related to the most likely completion of

thesentence" (Hillyard and Picton, 1986, p. 568). Thus there is a greater reduction in

N400for semantically related targets than for unrelated words. This phenomenon was

againsupported by the data from a study by Holcomb (1993) in which he presented

subjectswith related and unrelated word pairs and measured reaction time as well as

reductionin N400. He found both results: reaction times were shorter for related

targetsthan unrelated targets and reduction of N400 was greater for related targets

thanfor unrelated targets.

r;
 19

These results all indicate that there is a reliable method of recognizing semantic

priming based on electrophysiological data. Sentin, Kutas, and Hillyard (1993)

expand on this by investigating the same phenomenon of semantic priming as seen in

a reduction of N400, but they present the stimuli auditorily. The study shows that a

greater reduction of N400 amplitude occurs for auditorily presented related pairs than

occursfor auditorily presented unrelated pairs. The investigators presented their

subjectswith two different tasks. The first task, called the Memorize task, required that

subjectssimply listen to a list of words and memorize as many as they could. The

secondtask, called the Count Nonwords task, required that subjects count to

themselves silently the number of nonwords in a list of words. Sentin et al.

hypothesized that "the N400s in the recognition memory task would be more sensitive

tothe activation of the semantic.information both within and between words relative to

thelexical decision task in which nonwords were counted" (Sentin et aI., 1993, p. 162).

There were 16 subjects with normal hearing, all right-handed. The authors

testedthese subjects, measuring their ERPs while the subjects were performing on

eachof the tasks. In addition to left and right mastoids for a reference, and vertical and

horizontaleye electrodes for eye movements, they used electrode sites Fz, Cz, Pz, P3,

P4, T5, T6, as well as six other specially selected sites. The data was collected in the

formof an EEG and later averaged over epochs. The subjects were also given a word

recognitiontask measured by a questionnaire that consisted of old words, new words

thatwere related to old targets, and new words that were unrelated to words in the

previouslist. Subjects had to determine whether the words were old or new and had

to ratetheir confidence. The results of the study indicated a Significant effect of

semanticrelatedness, electrode site, and an interaction of semantic relatedness with

bothelectrode site and task.

Sentin and colleagues summarize their data by stating, "In general, these

resultsconfirm the existence of a robust semantic priming effect on the N400

 .~

-
20

component in the auditory modality" and "the amount of attention directed to semantic

analysis appears to be important in determining the size of the N400 priming effect"

(Bentin et aI., 1993, p. 167). Their data also indicates that auditory presentation of

stimuli shows the same semantic priming effect as visual presentation. As far as the

related versus unrelated pairs, they saw a difference in mean amplitude between the

related and the unrelated pairs. Their related pairs were divided into categorically

related pairs and antonym pairs and although the semantic priming effect was a bit

largerfor the antonyms, it was not significantly greater than that of the categorically

related pairs. As far as the effect of electrodes, the authors found that the electrodes

that were more frontal and more central had greater negativity. In order to perform

more analyses, the EEG data was divided into three epochs: 300-400 ms, 400-700 ms,

and700-900 ms. The semantic priming effect proved greatest in the middle epoch of

400-700 ms. In the recognition task there was a significantly greater percentage of

falsealarms for new words that were related than there was for new words that were

unrelated to words in the previous list. The Bentin et al. study is useful because it

expands the field of semantic priming to include ERP analysis of the auditory modality.

Based on the information provided by the Bentin et al. study, the current

investigation was an effort to discover if our knowledge of semantic priming and N400

could perhaps provide insight into the critical period of bilingual language acquisition.

The main focus was how early bilinguals prime under these conditions versus how

latebilinguals and learners do. The hypothesis was that early bilinguals would show

a greater effect of semantic priming, thus a greater reduction at N400, than would the

latebilinguals or the learners. The benefit of using ERP measures for examining the

semantic priming effect is that the three groups' N400 amplitudes could easily be

contrasted.

Semantic priming across languages is not such a new idea; it has recently been

studied by several investigators. One study by Tzelgov and Eben-Ezra describes an

 21

effect of semantic priming found between languages where the subjects were required

to pronounce the target words. The authors do not specify all of the ages of acquisition

forthe subjects, but most of them appear to have learned both of their languages at an

early age. The study investigates the theory of "automatic spread of activation", which

is a way of describing the way words are connected in the brain. They found that both

prime language and target language have effects on the priming effect, that is whether

the prime was in the same language or not was important in the priming effect. They

claimthat these results are "most consistent with the notion that the between-language

semantic priming effect reflects a structural feature of the semantic network-it is not

organised in terms of language specific areas" (Tzelgov and Eben-Ezra, 1992, p.266).

Also,Chen and Ng (1989) found better lexical decision performance when the prime

wasa translation than when the prime was a semantically related word. They also

foundthat between-language and within-language primes give way to equivalent

effectsof semantic facilitation. They interpret their results as being support for a

concept-mediation model where "words in the two languages, and pictures, are all

mentallyconnected by means of an amodal conceptual system, and that on the basis

ofthese links to concepts, subjects can actually respond to various kinds of tasks

involving the processing of pictures and words, such as lexical decision and naming"

(Chenand Ng, 1989, p. 460). The biggest problem with the Chen and Ng study was

thatthey did not specify whether the bilinguals were early or late bilinguals, although

fromtheir description of the subjects as having studied English in school for twelve

years,it is assumed that they must be late bilinguals considering the mean age was

twenty. Finally, a third bilingual study used N400 to note differences in bilinguals and

monolinguals (Ardal et aI., 1990). They did not, however, find differences due to age

of acquisition. These studies are all beginnings of new kinds of investigations into

bilingual language processing from which much can be said about the way language

is encoded.
 22

In conclusion, this study was designed to investigate the difference between

early bilinguals, late bilinguals, and early bilinguals with respect to semantic priming.

The null hypothesis is that if indeed there is no difference in the organization of two

languages for those who learned both languages at an early age versus those who

learned a second language after early childhood, then one would not expect that there

is many difference in the semantic priming effect for these two groups. In addition, one

would not expect that the subjects would perform any differently on the recognition

task.

PROCEDURE:

This study was modelled after the study by Sentin, Kutas, and Hillyard who

investigated semantic priming with auditory stimuli. Their study found a reduced

N400,thus an effect of semantic priming, when stimuli were presented auditorily. The

current study uses Sentin, Kutas, and Hillyard (1993) as a basis to investigate

semantic priming in bilinguals. Thus, the main added variable was the use of two

different languages. The study used targets in English primed by English words (E-E),

targets in English primed by Spanish words (S-E), Spanish targets primed by English

words (E-S), and Spanish targets with Spanish primes (S-S). The purpose of using

these four types was to find if early bilinguals, late bilinguals, and people just learning

a second language show semantic priming within languages (S-S and E-E) and

across languages (E-S and S-E). The hypothesis was that early bilinguals would

show greater semantic priming than the late bilinguals and similarly, the learners

would show even less of an effect of semantic priming than the late bilinguals.

The second part of the study was designed to test how we" the subjects did

indeed learn the words, a sort of recognition task. It also was designed to see if

perhaps early bilinguals code their words at a semantic level while late bilinguals do

more surface processing. The list presented included target words that were on the

previous list, target words that were not, and some words that were translations of
 ---1 _

23

targetwords on the previous list. The hypothesis here being that the early bilinguals

wouldmake more mistakes if they were "paying more attention to" the meaning of the

words rather than which language they were in, thus suggesting that they process on a

semantic level rather than a surface level. Again, processing at the semantic level

indicatesthat there is some feature about an object or idea that is represented in the

brainin a particular way which is shared by both languages. Surface processing, on

theother hand, has to do with grammatical and other such organizational features of

an idea.

SUBJECTS

Thesubjects were college students who volunteered for the study or were given

laboratorycredit for their Introductory to Psychology course. All subjects were right-

handedwith normal hearing. There were five pilot subjects whose data were not used

inthe study but rather were simply test subjects used to insure that the study would

proceedsmoothly. There were seven subjects in the early bilingual group, seven in

thelate bilingual group, and four in the learner group. Subjects in the early bilingual

groupwere mainly those who had been brought up speaking both English and

Spanishor had studied it from an early age (at least before age 9). Late bilinguals

werethose who became fluent after age 10. They had either studied or moved to or

froma Spanish-speaking country. Learners were those who had possibly been

exposedto Spanish earlier but had not studied it or had not become familiar with the

languageuntil much later, for example in high school or college.

STIMULI

Thewords used were recordings of a female voice digitized by the NeuroScan STIM

Soundprogram. Each word was a separate Sound file and each file was baseline

corrected and filtered in order to control for irrelevant sounds recorded. Each word

wasrecorded through a microphone, corrected, and then moved to the beginning of

thefile so that all of the stimuli onset were equivalent. Words were no longer than 700
 e

24

ms. The stimuli were presented biaurally through foam insert earphones at a preset

90.0dB. The stimulus onset interval was set at 2000 ms, 250 ms longer than the SOA

usedby Sentin et al. The reason for the difference was due to difficulties with the STIM

systemthat could only be avoided by increasing the SOA.

The first task was to listen to a list of word pairs based on a list provided by the

authorsof the Sentin, Kutas, and Hillyard study. Their list consisted of 128 word pairs

butthe list used here was expanded to include 144 word pairs. The added pairs were

basedon word pairs considered, but not actually used by Sentin et al. Sentin and

colleagues had chosen only words that ranged in frequency from 10 to 2,110 per

millionoccurrences as noted in Francis & Kucera (1982), and they cited a mean

frequency of 83.7. They also used word pairs that had been previously ranked,

accordingto relatedness, by eighty students. They only chose word pairs that were

givena mean rating above 2.95 for semantic relatedness. These were the word pairs

alsoused in the current study to form a general list of 144 semantically related pairs.

Thelist of semantically related words was then broken into four categories (S-S, S-E,

E-S, or E-E). This was accomplished by assigning numbers 1-4 to the list of word
pairswhich were ranked in order of semantic relatedness, the rating assigned from the

Sentinet al. study. The word pairs of each of the four categories were then assigned

eitheran R or a U. In order to form two lists from the 144 related pairs, the list of words

wasdivided up such that for one list the pairs with a U were kept related while those

withan R were made unrelated, while in the other list the U pairs were made unrelated

whilethe R pairs were kept with their related primes. Thus there were two final lists,

ListA and List S, where List A was a randomly assigned list of word pairs in which the

R targets were kept with their related prime while the U targets were randomly
assignedan unrelated prime that was of the same category type (S-S, S-E, E-S, or E-

E). List B consisted the same list of word pairs but the U pairs were kept with their
relatedprimes while the R pairs were made unrelated. The random reassignment of

...
 --

25

primesfor each list, in order to make the unrelated pairs, was within type, so that for

examplea S-E target was sure to have an unrelated prime that was in Spanish. As in

theBentin, Kutas, and Hillyard study, there were pairs of categorically related words as

wellas antonyms. In order to increase the number of pairs, both categorically related

pairsand antonyms were added, although more antonyms were added so that the

proportionof antonyms to categorically related pairs was greater than in the 8entin et

al.study. This was deemed acceptable because 8entin et al. did not find a significant

differencebetween the types and collapsed their data. They found that priming was

slightlybetter for antonyms but it was not statistically significant. Therefore, there was

nothreat of affecting the data by adding more antonyms than categorically related

pairs;the only effect would be an increased overall semantic priming, but this would

befor all three groups (early, late, and learners) so would not affect the results of this

particularstudy.

FIGURE 1

19 pairs of S-S U 17 pairs of S-S R

17 pairs of S-E U 19 pairs of S-E R
19 pairs of E-S U 17 pairs of E-S R
17 pairs of E-E U 19 pairs of E-E R

In both List A and List 8 there were thirty-six across-language unrelated pairs

andthirty-six across-language related pairs while there were thirty-six same-language

unrelatedpairs and thirty-six same-language related pairs (see Figure 1). See Figure

2fora division of the categories into the two lists. Both lists had the same order for

theirtargets, thus only the order of the primes was different for the two lists.
 -~

26

-----"-----------------------------------------------------
FIGURE2

List A: 19 pairs of S-S Unrelated 17 pairs of S-S Related

17 pairs of S-E Unrelated 19 pairs of S-E Related
19 pairs of E-S Unrelated 17 pairs of E-S Related
17 pairs of E-E Unrelated 19 pairs of E-E Related

List B: 19 pairs of S-S Related 17 pairs of S-S Unrelated

17 pairs of S-E Related 19 pairs of S-E Unrelated
19 pairs of E-S Related 17 pairs of E-S Unrelated
17 pairs of E-E Related 19 pairs of E-E Unrelated

The second task consisted of a recognition task using a list of 144 words. The

listwas simply the list of targets from the previous task divided up into three categories

andput in a new randomly assigned order. One third of the words in this list were the

sametargets presented again, one third were a translation of targets (that is, if the

wordwas previously DOG, the new word presented was that same word but in

Spanish, PERRO), and one third were completely new unrelated words. These

unrelated words were assigned so as to have the same amount of Spanish and

Englishwords as there was in the one third of the list of targets. Then this new list was

randomized in order to intersperse the three categories (Old, New- Translation, and

New-Unrelated). The New- Translation group was a substitution for the New- Related

groupused in the Sentin, Kutas, and Hillyard study. From here on the "New" category

willbe used to refer specifically to the New- Unrelated group, which "Translation" will

beused to refer to the New- Translation words. See Figure 3 for a division of the three

categories.
 27

FIGURE3

Translations: 8-8: 6 R, 6 U New: 8-8: 6 R, 6 U Old: 8-8: 5 R, 7 U

8-E: 7 R, 5 U 8-E: 6 R, 6 U 8-E: 6 R, 6 U
E-8: 6 R, 6 U E-8: 6 R, 6 U E-8: 5 R, 7 U
E-E: 7 R, 5 U E-E: 6 R, 6 U E-E: 6 R, 6 U

METHOD
Inthe first task, the subject was asked to listen to a list of words, some of which were in

English and some in Spanish. The subject was told that he would see a gray screen

witha light blue cross in the center and was asked to fixate on the blue cross, moving

hishead as little as possible and blinking at a comfortable rate but trying not to blink

toooften. Then he was asked to memorize as many of the words as he could. Finally,

the list was presented and the ERP was measured while the subject was listening to

the list and trying to memorize these words.

After the list was finished the subject was instructed that she would now hear

another list of words, some of which were on the previous list and some of which were

not. She asked to place her right hand on the mouse, with her index finger on the key

onthe left, and her middle finger on the key on the right. Then she was asked to

respondto each word she heard, that if the word she heard was on the previous list, to

pressone of the keys and if it was not on the previous list, to press the other key.

Subjects were counterbalanced for which finger they used for new and old words.

Thus,the subjects who heard List A were divided in half, half of them were required to

pressthe left key for old words and half were required to press the right key for old

words. Subjects who heard List B were also divided in this way. In the second task,

ERPwas not measured. The point of the second task was two-fold. The first object

wasto make sure the subjects did in fact memorize the words in the first list. The other

..oj
 - -- I

28

goalof the second task was to measure the reaction time. It was predicted that the

Earlybilinguals would react faster, if indeed early bilinguals process at a more

semanticlevel than late bilinguals, who may process at the surface level. Similarly, it

waspredicted that the Early bilinguals would actually make more mistakes on the

New-Translation words than the Late bilinguals. This is because if Early subjects

wereprocessing the words at a semantic level, perhaps their coding for language was

lesssignificant and would be more readily ignored when they heard the translation of

theword in the previous list. In other words, they were processing the words

semantically so when recognizing words, the translation of the target would would call

upthe same semantic representation and these subjects would mistakenly claim the

wordwas indeed on the previous list when it was not.

Finally, each subject was asked to fill out a questionnaire to rate his language

abilities,performance on the tasks, and other personal questions such as if he knew

anyother languages.

ELECTROPHYSIOLOG ICAl DATA COLLECTION

Theevent-related potentials were recorded from electrodes in the Electrocap. The

recordingsites used were Fz, Pz, Cz, P3, P4, TS, and T6. In addition, vertical eye

movementsand blinks were recorded from one individual electrode placed above the

eyeand another just below. Additional individual electrodes were used, one behind

eachear over the right and left mastoids, for the purpose of off-line averaging. Again,

theuse of the mastoids (as opposed to using earlobes) was due to the attempt to

replicateas closely as possible the Sentin et al, study. While each of the lists were

presented,the subjects were asked to fixate on a small light blue cross which was

presentedon a dark gray screen. This was in an effort to limit movement of the head

andeyes of the subject while the data was being recorded. Each word was

considereda separate sweep, lasting 1300 ms. The program for the lists of words was

writtenon Gentask, a program within the STIM system of Neuroscan. The Gentask file
 29

communicates with the SCAN system, which records the EEG. Each sweep began

exactly 100 ms before the stimulus was presented and ended at 1200 ms after the

onsetof the stimulus. This period was used to allow for later analysis of the data

wherethe total EEG would be divided into epochs as in the Sentin, Kutas, and Hillyard

study.

RESULTS

Each ERP was baseline corrected for all the of the electrodes, using the

prestimulus interval (-100 to 0 ms) as the baseline measure. Then each ERP was

artifactreduced to correct for eye blinks, usually using around a 450 millisecond

sweepduration and a trigger threshold of ten percent. Finally, the data was run

throughan artifact rejection process. Once the data was collected and corrected,

averageswere taken for each of the types one through twelve for each subject. Type

assignments can be seen in Figure 4. Averages were also taken for each of the

categories (unrelated targets, related antonym targets, and categorically related

targets)regardless of which kind of pair (S-S, S-E, etc.). This was to done so that it

couldbe analyzed whether or not there was indeed a reduced N400, an effect of

semanticpriming, for related versus unrelated targets.

FIGURE4

ERP types: 1: S-S Unrelated 7: E-S Related Antonym

2: S-E Unrelated 8: E-E Related Antonym
3: E-S Unrelated 9: S-S Related Category
4: E-E Unrelated 10: S-E Related Category
5: S-S Related Antonym 11: E-S Related Category
6: S-E Related Antonym 12: E-E Related Category

The ERP averaged files were then used to measure the mean amplitude

between400 and 700 ms. This epoch was used because in the Sentin et al. study,
 30

thiswas th.e epoch in which they found the greatest effect of semantic priming. This

data was analyzed in a multifactorial analysis of variance with repeated measures.

The ANOVA consisted of a dependent variable of mean amplitude with one between

subjects measure (Group) and two within groups measures (Electrode site and

Relatedness). The repeated measure of Group had three levels: Early, Late, and

Learner. Electrode site was divided into the seven electrodes: Fz, Cz, Pz, P3, P4, T5,

T6. Relatedness of targets also had three categories: Antonym, Categorically related,

andUnrelated. The ANOVA showed the following significant effects: Group: F (2,15) =
6.254, P = .0106; Electrode site: F (6,90) = 33.626, P = .0001; Relatedness: F (2,30) =
6.473, P = .0046. There was also an interaction effect of Relatedness and Group: F

(4,30)= 6.427, P = .0007. No other effects were significant. Further comparisons were

performed in order to view the effects within the variables. Early and Late groups were

contrasted (F [1,15] = 3.325, P = .922) as were Late and Learner groups (F [1,15] =
3.951, P = .0654) and Early versus Learners (F [1,15] = 12.401, P = .0031). There was

a significant interaction effect of Relatedness with Early versus Late subjects (F [2,30] =
5.440, P = .0096), a significant effect of Relatedness with Late versus Learners (F

[2,30]= 5.223, P = .0113), and a significant effect of Relatedness with Early versus

Learner(F [2,30] = 8.888, P = .0009). See Appendix B for means tables. The
significant effect of Relatedness also called for more detailed analysis such as Related

versusUnrelated (F [1,30] = 1.394, P = NS) which combined the Category and

Antonymcategories to form the Related group. Then Category and Antonym were

contrasted to find a significant difference between the two (F [1,30] = 11.551, P =

.0019). Similarly, Category versus Unrelated was significant (F [1,30] = 7.409, P =
.0107)although Antonym versus Unrelated was not (F [1,30] = .458, P = NS). No other

significant effects were found for the ERP data.

The overall performance of all subjects on the recognition task 49.0% correct.

Subjectsdid better on the New words (57.2%) than they did on the Translations
 31

(50.8%) while scoring the lowest on the Old words (45.2%). The mean latency overall

was 1.1768 ms and was divided as such: 1.1878 for the New words, 1.1677 for the

Oldwords, and 1.1829 for the Translation words. It should be noted that the

recognition task data for one of the eighteen subjects was not used because it was

incomplete due to a computer error in presentation. This subject was one of the four

Learnersubjects. The recognition task data was also subjected to an ANOVA with

repeated measures. The latency and percent correct measures were individually

compared to two between-subject measures, Group (Early, Late, and Learner) and List

(ListA and List B), as well as one within-subject variable which was the Type. Type

wasbroken up into eighteen cells as described in Figure 5.

FIGURE5

131: Translation from S-S Related 151: Old from S-S Related pair
132: Translation from S-E Related 152: Old from S-E Related pair
133: Translation from E-S Related 153: Old from E-S Related pair
134: Translation from E-E Related 154: Old from E-E Related pair
135: Translation from S-S Unrelated 161: Old from S-S Unrelated pair
136: Translation from S-E Unrelated 162: Old from S-E Unrelated pair
137: Translation from E-S Unrelated 163: Old from E-S Unrelated pair
138: Translation from E-E Unrelated 164: Old from E-E Unrelated pair
141: Spanish New Unrelated
142: English New Unrelated

The results of the ANOVAs showed no significant effects for latency. The only

significant effect for percent correct was List: F (1,13) = 7.147, P = .0191 as seen in

Appendix C. More detailed analysis of the types, which required collapsing across

certaintypes such as Old, New, Translation, Related, and Unrelated resulting in a

significant effect of type for Old versus New words (F [1,221] = 5.000, P = .0264).

Translation versus New, Related Translation versus Related Old, and Unrelated

Translation versus Unrelated Old, all proved insignificant. Other contrasts were
 ~

32

performed, such as looking at response to targets from between-language pairs as

compared to within-language pairs, but none appeared to be statistically significant.

DISCUSSION:

Just from glancing at the grand averages for the related targets versus the

unrelated targets, one can see a decreased negativity for the related words around

400 ms for most of the electrode sites (See Appendix D, parts I-XII). Similarly, the
effectof relatedness was a significant one. This indicates a replication of the semantic

priming effect found in the Sentin et at. study. Looking again at the grand averages,

thepeak is clearly delayed, usually greatest at around 430 ms, an effect also found in

theBentin study. Sentin et al, also found a negative wave at about 100 ms after

presentation of the stimuli which can also be seen in the grand averages for the

currentstudy. The other important result to note in the grand averages is the

difference between the electrodes. Fz, Cz, and Pz were clearly more negative and

seemto show greater semantic priming (see Graph 1). Similarly, P3, P4, T5 and T6

whichare more posterior and parietal sites, did not show as great of negativity as the

threecentral and more anterior locations. This is consistent with the results noted by

Bentinand colleagues who found that "during the 300-900-ms epoch the ERPs were

significantly more negative frontocentrally than at the parietal and temporal sites"

(Bentinet aI., 1993, p. 163).

'-
 33

GRAPH 1
Interaction Plot Effect: ELECTRODE SITE
Dependent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
with standard error bars
w
P
::J
r-
::s~ -0

~
.: 1

~
~ ~2
4-;
0
<Il
.3
~
IlJ
~
:::l -4
IlJ
U
.5

-6
FZ cz PZ P3 P4 T5 T6

ELECTFODE SITE

The new variable of second language proved to be an interesting addition.

Althoughthere was no significant effect of group for the early bilinguals versus the late
bilinguals,the early bilinguals did differ from the learner group and similarly, the late

bilingualsdiffered from the learners at p = .0654, a value approaching significant. This

effect can be viewed in Graph 2.

\'
 \ 34
\

'RAPH 2
Interaction Plot Effect: GROUP
Dependent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
with standard error bars
-.6
-.8
~
(:4
::> -1
E-<I
::1
Po.
-1.2
~ -1.4
~
-1.6
~ -1.8
~
.•... -2
0
II)
-2.2
~
C1i
-2.4
~
...•
...•
C1i -2.6
o
-2.8
EARLY LATE LEARNER

GROUP

PH 3
Interaction Plot Effect: RELATEDNESS
Dependent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
with standard error bars
-.4

~ -.6
(:4
::>
E-< -.8
::1
Po.
-1
~
~ -1.2

~ -1.4
.•...
0
II) -1.6
~
C1i -1.8
~
....•
....•
C1i
-2
U
-2.2
CATEGORY i- ANTONYM UNRELATED

RELATEDNESS
 34
\
RAPH 2
Interaction Plot Effect: GROUP
Dependent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
with standard error bars
-.6
-.8
~
0 -1
;:J
£-<1
•....• -1.2
...l

~ -1.4
4;
-1.6
~ -1.8
~
.•.. -2
0
(/)
-2.2
~
aJ -2.4
~
....
....
aJ -2.6
U
-2.8
EARLY LATE LEARNER

GROUP

PH 3
Interaction Plot Effect: RELATEDNESS
Dependent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
with standard error bars
-
-.4

~ -.6
0
;:J
E-< -.8
::1
~
-1
~
-1.2
~
~ -1.4
.•..
0
(/) -1.6
§
aJ -1.8
:?:
....
.... -2
aJ
U
-2.2
CATEGORY ANTONYM UNRELATED
.
RELATEDNESS
 35

In Graph 3 we see the effect of relatedness. Although there was not an overall

difference between the related words and the unrelated ones, the categorically related

targets words displayed significantly less negativity than antonyms and unrelated

targets. There was a significant contrast between category and antonyms as well as

between category and unrelated. Antonym and unrelated targets did not show any

significant difference. In the Bentin et al. study, the antonyms actually showed a

greater effect of semantic priming for antonym targets than for categorically related

targets, although this effect was not a statistically significant one. There are several

possible explanations for why the antonyms did not show the same effect in this study.

The expectation had been that the antonyms would be approximately equivalent to the

categorically related words. This was not the case overall. By looking at the

interaction effect of relatedness and group (see Graph 4), we can see that for the early

groupthe category type was much higher than the antonym while results for the late

groupshowed that they were equivalent. The most bothersome evidence comes from

thelearners, who show the opposite effect than was expected. The fact that the

antonyms for the learners was so significantly different is reason for concern. One fact

thatshould be investigated is the difference in List A versus List B. There was a

significant difference in the recognition task and if this is representative of this data,

someunderstanding may evolve from a comparison of the two lists for the ERP data.

Forinstance, in the recognition task, the percent correct was much lower for List A than

forList B. This may be interpreted as those subjects who were presented List A for

somereason showed less semantic priming, as possibly shown in the recognition

data. If this is the case, there may be something wrong with the structure of List A and

if only List B were analyzed for relatedness * group effects, perhaps there would be

resultsmore consistent with the Bentin et al. study. Another possibility is that

antonyms across languages are just not the same as antonyms within languages.

Thiscould be for a number of reasons. One reason is that oftentimes antonyms are
 -- .-
. "'..•.

••••

36

culturally defined, or at least emphasized more in some societies than in others, such

as BLACKIWHITE. Perhaps trying to prime across languages for these kinds of pairs

does not prove to be consistent with a semantic priming effect. Also, using

BLACKIWHITE again as an example, perhaps these are not in fact coded as antonyms

across languages but rather as categorically related words under the category

"COLORS". Another possible explanation is the fact that words do not always have

semantic equivalents across languages. The Spanish words used were as

conceptually accurate translations from the English words provided by Sentin and

colleagues as is possible; however that still does not rule out the possibility of a word

in one language meaning something slightly different in the other language. Similarly,

homophones were avoided as much as possible, but it is clear that some words can

initiate several different semantic codes. The word "sink" can be interpreted as the

object in a kitchen or it can be the verb of an object not staying afloat. Perhaps primes

that could have more than one meaning were misleading, especially in the case of

antonyms. For List A and List S word pairs, see Appendix E I-II.

GRAPH 4
Interaction Plot Effect: RELATEDNESS * GROUP
Dependent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
with standard error bars

~ .5
0
;:J 0
5~ -.5
~ 0 CATEGORY

i f •
-1~
~ -1.5 ANTONYM
~ Ii UNRELATED
'+-< -2
0
III
-2.5
§
Cl)
~ -3
~
Cl) -3.5
U
-4
EARLY LATE LEARNER
GFOJP
 ".

-
37

The recognition data provided results that were quite curious. First of all, there

was no significant effect of latency. Second of all the percent correct overall was only

49.1 percent, significantly lower than that of the Sentin et al. study, and only at chance

level. See Graph 5 for percent correct by group. One interpretation of this result is that

the subjects did worse because of the added language. In other words, perhaps there

was an overall effect of language being a confusing factor in the task, causing all of the

subjects to perform worse. One way to investigate this would be to contrast the mean

percent correct for the bilingual groups, the Early and the Late groups, with the

Learner group. If indeed the mean was significantly higher for the bilingual groups

than for the learning group, then it may be that the early bilinguals did not display any

significant number of false alarms on the translations because the overall performance

on this recognition task was so poor. This could be further investigated by examining
the data to see whether the bilinguals did better overall. One would expect that the

bilinguals would have done better than the learners if just the added language was the

factor that caused the subjects to perform so poorly on the recognition task. If the

bilinguals did better than the learners, then it is possible that overall performance was

skewed by the data from the learners. It would also be important to investigate

whether the two bilingual groups had the same success rate on the translations.

•...
 -----. •••••
38

GRAPH 5
Interaction Plot Effect: GROUP
Dependent: PERCENT CORRECT
with standard error bars
53

52
51
I-
o 50
w
a:
a: 49
0
o
48
~
'0
(/)
47
c
<ll
Q) 46
~
Qi 45
o
44

43

42
EARLY LATE LEARNER
..., Group

The most problematic result of the recognition task, as well as the study overall,

is the difference found in List A and List 8 (see Appendix C for means table and

graph). Again, this could be due to an uneven distribution of problematic words like

homophones or a poor translation. Tzelgov and Eben-Ezra (1992) note that abstract

and concrete words yield different results in semantic priming. Perhaps there was a

trend for more abstract words to be found in List A. The difference between the two

lists may also be a problem relating to the distribution of subjects who were presented

each of the lists. There were several subjects in List 8 who did exceptionally well on

the recognition tasks, so perhaps this caused differences in the data. Similarly,

because one of the subject's data was not used, there was only one subject in the

Learner group that was presented with List 8; if this subject happened to do very well

on the task, the entire learner group as well as the overall data may have been

affected by this. A way to investigate this further would be to test more subjects so as
 <

--
39

to decrease the influence each subject has and to increase chances of getting a more

equivalent set of subjects in each group.

Other problems with the study include the small number of subjects, the limited

kinds of subjects used, etc. In an effort to replicate the Sentin et al. study, the lists were

taken from their list of English pairs. This may have not been the most beneficial way

to form pairs that involved a different language as well, with a different cultural

background that has linguistic implications. Yet the overall semantic priming effect

found in the Sentin et al. paper was also noted in this study and there certainly was a

difference in the groups (early, late, and learner), which, with further investigation, may

lead to a better understanding of bilingualism. Another problem was that the number of

words in the lists for both tasks was increased. Perhaps the larger number of words

had an effect on the ability of the subjects to memorize and or just process the words.

There are a great number of implications that can be drawn from this study.

There are also more analyses of the data that could be performed to further investigate

the results of the study. For instance, the whole issue of between-languages versus

within-languages is an important one but one which could not be analyzed in this

project because of time constraints. Thus, comparing the E-E and the S-S pairs with

the E-S and the S-E pairs would be one way to see the overall differences between

within-language pairs and between-language pairs. Similarly, this should be done by

dividing up the groups first so as to find any difference in the between-language pairs

and within-language pairs according to group. This could be done for both the ERP

data and the recognition task data and would tell us a great deal about the overall

results as well as lead to implications of differences between early and late bilinguals

and learners.

There are also a number of studies that could be developed to further

investigate some of the results found here. One such study would be one that

specifically examines differences between categorically related words and antonyms

 40

in early bilinguals versus late bilinguals. Another study could investigate between-
language pairs and within-language pairs, including the differences these kinds of
pairs show in early bilinguals versus late bilinguals versus learners (as described

above). Other studies that would provide interesting results would be ones that looked
intodifferences in parts of the brain active for early bilinguals, late bilinguals, and
learners. Perhaps there are some differences between the three groups and where
they are processing words. There are a number of ideas that can be drawn from the
research presented here. Although the results were not clear enough to draw any

substantial conclusions without further investigation or an attempt to replicate these

results,this study does indicate that there is most likely some kind of important

difference between early bilinguals and late bilinguals that is worth investigating.
IMPLICATIONS:
One general question to be asked is: Why does all of this matter? The answer
is not clear because the data are not clear. As we encounter and interpret more and

moredata on bilingualism, we will know whether or not it is a field of study that can in

fact help us understand language processing. The motivation for the above paper was
an interest in language learning and a curiosity about when the best time to learn a
languageis. The fact that early bilinguals have in previous research shown to be

more"truly" bilingual, and in this study there is at least some difference between the
languageprocessing of early bilinguals and late bilinguals and learners, leads us to
believethat indeed there is something different about early bilinguals. If second

languagelearning is similar to first language learning, then the best time to learn a
secondlanguage would be right along with the first language, in which case there

shouldbe pressure to integrate bilingual programs into school systems. Here in the

UnitedStates, knowing a second language is neither very important nor very

encouraged. In Europe, however, many people know two if not more than two

languages. In Valencia, Spain most children study Spanish, Valenciano, English and
 .. --
41

usually French as well, from a very early age. If we can show that there is something

very different about learning a second language at a young age, perhaps we too will
be encouraged to learn more than one language right away rather than wait until we

have passed our critical period of bilingual language acquisition.

~
 \ \.

@ ®
d '~Er
/ '

@
® ® @
@ @
®
®
(e6BluOW eLH uo
@
JBedde l,uSeoO) P

9,
pendix
B

: GROUP
ndent: MEAN AMPLITUDE
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

EARLY 147 -1.001 2.553 .211

LATE 147 -1.560 2.275 .188
LEARNER 84 -2.285 3.458 .377

: ELECTRODE SITE
:endent:MEAN AMPLITUDE

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

FZ 54 -4.700 2.683 .365

PZ 54 -3.170 2.169 .295
cz 54 -1.198 2.281 .310
T5 54 -.869 2.161 .294
T6 54 -.891 2.182 .297
P3 54 .541 1.717 .234
P4 54 -.237 1.761 .240

: RELATEDNESS
:endent:MEAN AMPLITUDE
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error
CATEGORY 126 - .887 3.075 .274
ANTONYM 126 -1.788 2.521 .225
UNRELATED 126 -1.836 2.433 .217

a: RELATEDNESS • GROUP
endent:MEAN AMPLITUDE

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

CATEGORY, EARLY 49 .316 2.388 .341

CATEGORY, LATE 49 -1.335 2.541 .363
CATEGORY, LEARNER 28 -2.207 4.168 .788
ANTONYM, EARLY 49 -1.480 2.551 .364
ANTONYM, LATE 49 -1.351 1.960 .280
ANTONYM, LEARNER 28 -3.093 2.955 .558
UNRELATED, EARLY 49 -1.839 2.211 .316
UNRELATED, LATE 49 -1.994 2.270 .324
UNRELATED, LEARNER 28 -1.554 3.070 .580

•...
Appendix
C

Means Table
Effect: List
Dependent: % CORRECT

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

162 43.549 21.157 1.662

A
144 55.197 24.141 2.012
B

Interaction Plot
Effect: List
Dependent: % CORRECT
With Standard Error error bars.
58

56

~ 54
o
w
a: 52
a:
0
o 50
~
0

"0
!/l 48
c
<1l
Q)

:::2 46
Qj
o 44

42

40
A B
List
 GRAHD AVERAGE

Related •....
5 Unrelated APPENDIX D
(red) (green)
5.80 part I.

4.20

2.88

1.40

~~
o
J
o
b -1.40
~

-2.813

-4.20

-5.60

-v.eal I I I I I I I I I

-100 30 160 2913 4213 550 680 810 940 113713 12013

11i I I i seconds
 GRAHD AVERAGE,

Related vs Unre La t e d
5.60
(red) (green) APPENDIX D
part II

4.2121

2.80

1.40

0.013

l~
+'
o
:>
o
b -1.4121
I:

-2.813

-4.20

-5.613

-7.00' , I I I ! I I I I I

-1013 30 1613 291.3 420 550 680 81121 94121 11.371.3 121210

11i I I i seconds
 GRAHD AVERAGE.

3.20 Related vs Unrelated APPEHDIX D

(red) (green) part III

2.40

1.6B

0.80

0.00

lQ
t-
oJ
'J
s,
(J
-0.80
I:

-1.80

-2.413

-3.213

-4.00' , , I I I I I I ! I

-100 30 160 290 420 550 68B 810 940 1070 1200

11i I I i seconds
 GRAND AVERAGE.

3.20 APPEtiDIX D
Related vs Unrelated part IU
(red) (green)

2.40

1.60

0.80

0.00

...,l~
"0
:>
.J
s, -10.80
(J

I:

-1.6£1

-2.40

-3.20

-4.00' , I I I I I I I I I

-100 30 160 2'~0 420 550 680 810 940 1070 1200

11i I I i seconds
 GRAND AVERAGE.

APPENDIX D
4.10 Related vs Unrelated
part V
(red) (green)

3.20

2.30

1.40

0.513

l~
+'
o
:>
o
b
I:

-1.30

-2.20

-3.10

-4.1301 I I I I I I I I I I

-1013 30 1613 290 420 550 680 810 940 1070 1200

11ill i seconds
 GRAHD AVERAGE

4.10
APPENDIX D
Related us Unrelated part VI
(red) (green)

3.20

2.313

1.40

0.50

~~
o
J
o
b -13.40
~

-1.30

-2.20

-3.10

-4.013 I I I I I I I I ! I I

-1130 313 160 290 4213 5se 6313 810 '~40 un0 1200

11i I I i seconds
 GRAND AVERAGE

4.10 APPENDIX D
Related vs Unrelated
part VI I
(red) (green)

3.213

2 .3~3

1.413

lq
+'
-
o
::>
.J
b
I:

-1.30

-2.213

-3.113

-4.1313' , I I I I I I I I I

-100 30 160 2913 4213 550 680 810 940 un13 12013

11j 1 1 j seconds
APPENDIXE - part I LIST A

1 C LLWIA KIDNEY 3.05 2 u 2

2 C BOCA JURY 3.44 2 u 2
3 C YEAR MONTH 3.36 4 r 12
4 C BEE ROBLE I 3.10 3 u 3
I 5 C CORBATA CHAQUETA 3.35 1 r 9
6 A BARCO SECO 3.54 1 u 1
7 C CANDY BOOK 3.32 4u 4
8 C DOOR WINDOW 3.26 4 r 12
I 9 A OFTEN LLENO 3.00 3 u 3
10 C MOTOR ENGINE 3.51 4 r 12
11 C TRACTO'R LENS 3.26 2 u 2
12 C DOCTOR ENFERMERA 3.56 3 r 11
13 C NEST SMOKE 3.00 4 u 4
14 A SUMMER INVIERNO 3.46 3 r 7
115 C VIA GATO 3.97 1 u 1
1
16 C EARTH LUNA 3.21 3 r 11
17 C INFANTE BABY 3.61 2 r 10
18 A MIEDO VALENTI' A 3.08 1 r 5
19 A THIN OESTE 3.28 3 u 3
20 A WIN PERDER 3.06 3 r 7
21 A JAMON MEJOR 3.45 1 u 1
22 C ENFERMO TIO 3.29 1 u 1
23 A LONG FOUND 3.23 4 u 4
24 A WHEEL DENSO 3.21 3 u 3
25 C FUTURE ELEGIR 3.41 3 u 3
26 A AGWA LAST 3.26 2 u 2
27 A FRIJOLES SANO 3.67 1 u 1
!

28 C CABEZA PELO 3.23 1 r 9

29 C KNIT SEW 3.45 4 r 12
30 C RELAX DISFRUTAR 3.25 3 r 11
31 C CORDERO OVEJA 3.48 1 r 9
32 C MANZANA ORANGE 3.24 2 r 10
33 A FLOAT SINK 3.39 4 r 8
34 C VERDURA FRUTA 3.70 1 r 9
35 A ACTIVE PASIVO 3.26 3 r 7
36 A CIGAR NONE 3.32 4 u 4
37 A SUAVE DURO 3.26 1 r 5
38 C PISTOLA RIFLE 3.28 2 r 10
39 A MAS LESS 3.29 2 r 6
40 C CERRADURA KEY 3.16 2 r 10
41 C MOJADO OJO 3.18 1 u 1
42 A COMPRAR IR 3.32 1 u 1
143 C LOST BUTTER 3.63 4u 4
44 C RARAMENTE NEVER 3.80 2 r 10
45 A TRUE FALSE 3.19 4 r 8
46 A FAME LEVANTARSE 3.72 3 u I 3

:=unrelated, r=related)
APPENDIXE - part I LIST A

47 A TOBACO NIGHT 3.07 2 u 2

48 C HOUSE CIUDAD 3.47 3 r 11
49 C CAR CAMION 3.32 3 r 11
50 A SUN PASAOO 3.51 3 u 3
S1 A OPEN CLOSED 2.97 4 r 8
52 A MESA TARDE 3.02 1 u 1
53 C CERCA PIPE 3.22 2 u 2
54 A HI'GADO OLD 3.69 2 u 2
55 C BATH TUB 3.57 4 r 12
56 C OREJA GUISANTES 3.10 1 u 1
57 A HIGH BAJO 3.59 3 r 7
58 A GOOD BAD 3.62 4 r 8
59 C LARGE ENORME 3.39 3 r 11
60 C SIT MIEL 3.27 3 u 3
61 A GAME DE'BIL 3.41 3 u 3
62 A EMPEZAR PARAR 3.61 1 r 5
63 C ARMY MARINA 3.43 3 r 11
64 A ODIAR LOVE 3.82 2 r 6
65 A EAST TOSCO 3.11 3 u 3
66 C MOVIE GREEN 3.37 4 u 4
67 C PINE SIEMPRE 3.79 3 u 3
68 A PUSH PULL 3.28 4 r 8
69 A ARRIBA BELOW 3.52 2 r 6
I 70 C JO'VEN MATAR 2.97 1 u 1
71 C MADURO ADULTO 3.39 1 r 9
72 C LIFE LLANTA 3.52 3 u 3
73 A PRIMERO UGLY 3.15 2 u 2
74 A DREAM WIDE 3.15 4 u 4
75 C NEGRO CALLE 3.61 1 u 1
I 76 A LI'DER FOLLOWER 3.13 2 r 6
I 77 C MERCADO BOTE 3.24 1 u 1
78 C PECHO SHOULDER 3.36 2 r 10
79 A IZQUIERDA DERECHA 3.18 1 r 5
80 A TEMPRANO VENDER 3.21 1 u 1
81 C CABALLO COW 3.52 2 r 10
I 82 C CORAZON TIENDA 3.47 1 u 1
83 C ALL SLEEP 3.55 4u 4
84 C GRIEF PENA 3.67 3 r 11
85 C BLOSSOM GLORIA 3.24 3 u 3
86 C TENNIS RACKET 3.23 4 r 12
87 A ROMPER ARREGLAR 3.72 1 r 5
88 A FRIEND ENEMY 3.72 4 r 8
189 A VENIR RECHAZAR 3.14 1 u 1
90 C BRAZO PIERNA 3.56 1 r 9
91 C PINTURA BROCHA 3.26 1 r 9
92 A PEOR BLANCO 4.00 11u 1

(u=unrelated, r=related)
APPENDIXE - part I LIST A

93 C COMENZAR SHOES 3.33 2 u 2

94 C STORM WIND 3.08 4 r 12
95 C RIO STREAM 2.97 2 r 10
96 A FELIZ SAD 3.00 2 r 6
97 C PERRO PULMONES 3.43 1 u 1
98 A IMPAR EVEN 3.21 2 r 6
99 A COPPER PEACE 3.68 4 u 4
100 C NARROW FILM 3.21 4 u 4
101 C BONITO THREAD 3.68 2 u 2
102 A A'NGEL FAR 3.61 2 u 2
103 C VINO CERVEZA 3.13 1 r 9
104 C RAT MOUSE 3.40 4 r 12
: 105 A LIVE DIE 3.47 4 r 8
106 A DEEP
1

SHORT 3.46 4 u 4
107 A ANTES AFTER 3.66 2 r 6
108 C WARM BRASS 3.11 4 u 4
109 A BOTAS DEVIL 3.46 2 u 2
110 C FLOWER GALLETA 2.95 3 u 3
1111 C ENOJADO ENFADADO 3.07 1 r 9

1112 C GENTLE JUGAR 3.15 3 u 3

113 A FRONT TRAS 3.69 3 r 7
114 A BREAD SMOOTH 3.05 4 u 4
115 C ROUGH TREE 3.43 4 u 4
1
116 C JUEZ NOSE 3.12 2 u 2
117 A POBRE RICO 3.47 1 r 5
118 C BLUE HOT 3.47 4 u 4
119 C WAR BIRD 3.25 4 u 4
120 C ACEPTAR SILLA 3.53 1 u 1
121 C BARN FARM 3.70 4 r 12
122 C MAR ISLAND 3.43 2 r 10
123 C SON DAUGHTER 2.95 4 r 12
124 C CHIQUrrO SNOW 3.56 2 u 2
125 A GAFAS END 3.35 2 u 2
126 C HILL MONTAN"A 3.12 3 r 11
127 C TIA CERDO 3.37 1 u 1
128 A GIVE RECIBIR 3.33 3 r 7
129 C ARCO ARROW 3.45 2 r 10
130 C ASESINAR PLOW 3.39 2 u 2
131 A DIFFICULT EASY 3.08 4 r 8
I
132 C HAND PIE 3.00 3 r 11
133 C WOOD ESTRELLA 3.36 3 u 3
134 A AUTHOR SHALLOW 3.55 4 u 4
135 C SORPRESA SOBRESALTO 3.45 1 r 9
136 C MONK PRIEST 3.15 4 r 12
137 C EMPTY FLORECER 3.58 3 u 3
138 A VOTE MUERTE 3.63 3 u 3

.~
'u=unrelated. r=related)
APPENDIXE - part I LIST A

139 A AMARGO DULCE 3.35 1 r 5

140 C STRONG META'LlCO 3.45 3 u 3
141 A INCORRECTO RIGHT 3.42 2 r 6
142 C DIA LITTLE 3.48 2 u 2
143 A NOISE SILECIO 3.15 3 r 7
144 C MAESTRO STUDENT 3.10 2 r 10

u=unrelated, r=related)
 APPENDIXE - part II List B

1 C HI'GADO KIDNEY 3.05 2 u 10

2 C JUEZ JURY 3.44 2 u 10
3 C BARN MONTH 3.36 4 r 4
4 C PINE ROBLE 3.10 3 u 11
5 C BRAZO CHAQUETA 3.35 1 r 1
6 A MOJADO SECO 3.54 1 u 5
I 7 C AUTHOR BOOK 3.32 4 u 12
8 C GOOD WINDOW 3.26 4 r 4
9 A EMPTY LLENO 3.00 3 u 7
10 C TRUE ENGINE 3.51 4 r 4
11 C GAFAS LENS 3.26 2 u 10
12 C GRIEF ENFERMERA 3.56 3 r 3
! 13 C CIGAR SMOKE 3.00 4u ' 12
: 14 A RELAX INVIERNO 3.46 3 r 3
115 C PERRO GATO 3.97 1 u 9
I 16 C FRONT LUNA 3.21 3 r 3
17 C FELIZ BABY 3.61 2 r 2
18 A SUAVE VALENTI' A 3.08 1 r 1
19 A EAST OESTE 3.28 3 u 7
20 A ACTIVE PERDER 3.06 3 r 3
I 21 A PEOR MEJOR 3.45 1 u 5
I22 C TIA TIO 3.29 1 u 9
123 A LOST FOUND 3.23 4u 8
124 A THIN DENSO 3.21 3 u 7
I 25 C VOTE ELEGIR 3.41 3 u 11
26 A PRIMERO LAST 3.26 2 u 6
27 A ENFERMO SANO 3.67 1 u 5
28 C PINTURA PELO 3.23 1 r 1
129 C YEAR SEW 3.45 4 r 4
! 30 C LARGE DISFRUTAR 3.25 3 r 3
I

31 C ROMPER OVEJA 3.48 1 r 1

32 C PECHO ORANGE 3.24 2 r 2
33 A DOOR SINK 3.39 4 r 4
34 C SORPRESA FRUTA 3.70 1 r 1
I 35 A NOISE PASIVO 3.26 3 r 3
I 36 A ALL NONE 3.32 4u 8
37 A IZQUIERDA DURO 3.26 1 r 1
38 C IMPAR RIFLE 3.28 2 r 2
39 A PISTOLA LESS 3.29 2 r 2
40 C INCORRECTO KEY 3.16 2 r 2
41 C OREJA OJO 3.18 1 u 9
42 A VENIR IR 3.32 1 u 5
143 C BREAD BUTTER 3.63 4 u 12
144 C CERRADURA NEVER 3.80 2 r 2
45 A SON FALSE 3.19 4 r 4
11146 A SIT LEVANTARSE 3.72 3 u 7

(u=related, r= u n re lated)

1
APPENDIXE - part II List B

47 A DIA INIGHT 3.07 2 u 6

48 C FRIEND CIUDAD 3.47 3 r 3
49 C SUMMER ICAMION 3.32 3 r 3
50 A FUTURE PASAOO 3.51 3 u 7
51 A MOTOR CLOSED 2.97 4 r 4
52 A TEMPRANO TARDE 3.02 1 u 5
53 C TOBACO PIPE 3.22 2 u 10
54 A JO'VEN OLD 3.69 2 u 6
55 C DIFFICULT TUB 3.57 4 r 4
56 C FRIJOLES GUISANTES 3.10 1 u 9
57 A CAR BAJO 3.59 3 r 3
58 A RAT BAD 3.62 4 r 4
,
59 C GIVE ENORME 3.39 3 r 3
60 C BEE MIEL 3.27 3 u 11
61 A STRONG DE'BIL 3.4 1 3 u 7
62 A ODIAR PARAR 3.61 1 r 1
63 C HIGH MARINA 3.43 3 r 3
64 A ENOJADO LOVE 3.82 2 r 2
65 A GENTLE TOSCO 3.11 3 u 7
66 C BLUE GREEN 3.37 4 u 12
67 C OFTEN SIEMPRE 3.79 3 u 11
68 A FLOAT PULL 3.28 4 r 4
69 A RIO BELOW 3.52 2 r 2
70 C ASESINAR MATAR 2.97 1 u 9
71 C CORBATA ADULTO 3.39 1 r 1
72 C WHEEL LLANTA 3.52 3 u 11
73 A BONITO UGLY 3.15 2 u 6
74 A NARROW WIDE 3.15 4u B
7S C VIA CALLE 3.61 1 u 9
76 A INFANTE FOLLOWER 3.13 2 r 2
77 C BARCO BOTE 3.24 1 u 9
78 C MAESTRO SHOULDER 3.36 2 r 2
79 A VERDURA DERECHA 3.18 1 r 1
80 A COMPRAR VENDER 3.21 1 u 5
81 C ARCO COW 3.52 2 r 2
182 C MERCADO TIENDA 3.47 1 u 9
83 C DREAM SLEEP 3.55 4u 12
84 C DOCTOR PENA 3.67 3 r 3
85 C FAME GLORIA 3.24 3 u 11
86 C LIVE RACKET 3.23 4 r 4
87 A AMARGO ARREGLAR 3.72 1 r 1
88 A EARTH ENEMY 3.72 4 r 4
89 A ACEPTAR RECHAZAR 3.14 1 u 5
90 C MIEDO PIERNA 3.56 1 r 1
91 C CABElA BROCHA 3.26 1 r 1
92 A NEGRO BLANCO 4.00 1 u 5

~=related,r=unrelated)
APPENDIX E - part II List B

93 C BOTAS SHOES 3.33 2 u 10

94 C KNIT WIND 3.08 4 r 4
95 C CABALLO STREAM 2.97 2 r 2
96 A Lt'DER SAD 3.001 2 r 2
97 C CORAZON PULMONES 3.43 1 u 9
98 A MANZANA EVEN 3.21 2 r 2
99 A WAR PEACE 3.68 4 u 8
100 C MOVIE FILM 3.21 4u 12
101 C AGWA THREAD 3.68 2 u 10
102 A CERCA FAR 3.61 2 u 6
103 C MADURO CERVEZA 3.13 1 r 1
104 C MONK MOUSE 3.40 4 r 4
105 A STORM DIE 3.47 4 r 4
106 A LONG SHORT 3.46 4 u 8
107 A ARRIBA AFTER 3.66 2 r 2
108 C COPPER BRASS 3.11 4u 12
109 A A 'NGEL DEVIL 3.46 2 u 6
110 C CANDY GALLETA 2.95 3 u 11
111 C POBRE ENFADADO 3.07 1 r 1
112 C GAME JUGAR 3.15 3 u 11
113 A HILL TRAS 3.69 3 r 3
114 A ROUGH SMOOTH 3.05 4 u 8
115 C FLOWER TREE 3.43 4u 12
116 C BOCA NOSE 3.12 2 u 10
117 A VINO RICO 3.47 1 r 1
118 C WARM HOT 3.47 4u 12
119 C NEST BIRD 3.25 4 u 12
120 C MESA SILLA 3.53 1 u 9
121 C BATH FARM 3.70 4 r 4
122 C ANTES ISLAND 3.43 2 r 2
123 C TENNIS DAUGHTER 2.95 4 r 4
124 C LLLNIA SNOW 3.56 2 u 10
125 A COMENZAR END 3.35 2 u 6
126 C HOUSE MONTAN" A 3.12 3 r 3
127 C JAMON CERDO 3.37 1 u 9
128 A HAND RECIBIR 3.33 3 r 3
129 C RARAMENTE ARROW 3.45 2 r 2
130 C TRACTO'R PLOW 3.39 2 u 10
131 A PUSH EASY 3.08 4 r 4
132 C WIN PIE 3.00 3 r 3
133 C SUN ESTRELLA 3.36 3 u 11
134 A DEEP SHALLOW 3.55 4 u 8
135 C CORDERO SOBRESALTO 3.45 1 r 1
136 C OPEN PRIEST 3.15 4 r 4
; 137 C BLOSSOM FLORECER 3.58 3 u 11
1138 A LIFE MUERTE 3.63 3 u 7

(u=related, r=unrelated)
APPENDIX E - part II List B

139 A EMPEZAR DULCE 3.35 1 r 1

140 C WOOD META'LlCO 3.45 3 u 11
141 A MAS RIGHT 3.42 2 r 2
142 C CHIQUITa LITTLE 3.48 2 u 10
143 A ARMY SILECIO 3.15 3 r 3
144 C MAR STUDENT 3.10 2 r 2

(u=related, r=unrelated)
 .. "---.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ardal,S., Donald, M.W., Meuter, R., Muldrew, S. and Luce, M. (1990). "Brain
Responses to Semantic Incongruity in Bilinguals." Brain and Language, 39,
pp. 187-205

Bentin,S., Kutas, M., and Hillyard, S.A. (1993). "Electrophysiological evidence for task
effects on semantic priming in auditory word processing." Psychophysiology,
30, pp. 161-169.

Berquier, A. and Ashton, R. (1992). "Language Lateralization in Bilinguals: More Not

Less Is Needed: A Reply to Paradis (1990)." Brain and Language, 43, pp. 528-
533.

Brandeis, D. and Lehmann, D. (1986). "Event-Related Potentials of the Brain and

Cognitive Processes: Approaches and Applications." Neuropsychologia, vol.
24(1), pp. 151-168.

Berthier,M.L., Starkstein, S.E., Lylyk, P. and Leiguarda, R. (1990). "Differential

Recovery of Languages in a Bilingual Patient: A Case Study Using Selective
Amy tal Test." Brain and Language, 38, pp. 449-453.

Breathnach, C.S. (1993). "Temporal determinants of language acquisition and

bilingualism." Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 10(1), February,
pp. 41-47.

Carlson,N.R. (1991). Physiology of Behavior, 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.

Chen,H.-C. and Ng, M.-L. (1989). "Semantic facilitation and translation priming effects
in Chinese-English bilinguals." Memory & Cognition, 17 (4), pp. 454-462.

ENin-Tripp, S.M. (1973). Language acquisition and Communicative Choice.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

fox, J.L. (1983). "Debate on Learning Theory is Shifting." Science, vol. 222, 16
December, pp. 1219-1222.

rancis, W.N. and Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon
And Grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

ried, I., Ojemann, G.A. and Fetz, E.E. (1981). "Language-Related Potentials Specific
to Human Language Cortex." Science, vol. 212, 17 April, pp. 353-356.

amers, J.F. and Blanc, M.H.A. (1989). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hillyard, S.A. and Picton, T.W. (1986). "Electrophysiology of cognition." From
Handbook of Physiology: A critical, comprehensive presentation of
physiological knowledge and concepts (Section 1: The Nervous System.
Volume V.) Stephen R. Geiger (Ed.). American Physiological Society.

Holcomb, P.J. (1993). "Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for
the role of N400 in language processing." Psychophysiology, 30, pp. 47-61.

Hurford, J.R. (1991). "The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition."
Cognition, 40, pp. 159-201.

Ingram, D. (1989). First Language ACQuisition: Method. Description, and Explanation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ohnson, J.S. and Newport, E.L. (1989). "Critical Period Effects in Second Language
Learning: The Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of English as a
Second Language." Cognitive Psychology, 21, pp. 60-99.

ohnson, J.S. and Newport, E.L. (1991). "Critical Period Effects on Universal
Properties of Language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second
language." Cognition, 39, pp. 215-258.

evy, Y., Amir, N. and Shalev, R. (1992). "Linguistic Develoment of a Child with a
Congenital, Localised L.H. Lesion." Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9(1), pp. 1-32.

agiste, E. (1992). "Second Language Learning in Elementary and High School

Students." European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(4), pp. 355-365.

arcotte, A.C. and Morere, D.A. (1990). "Speech Lateralization in Deaf Populations:
Evidence for a Developmental Critical Period." Journal of Brain and Language,
39, pp. 134-152.

arin, O.S.M. (1982). "Brain and Language: The Rules of the Game," Chapter 3. In
M.A. Arbib, D. Caplan, and J.C. Marshall (Eds), Neural Models of Language
Processes. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

ayberry, R.I. (1993). "First-Language Acquisition After Childhood Differs From

Second-Language Acquisition: The Case of American Sign Language."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, vol. 36, December, pp. 1258-1270.

Ijemann, G.A. (1978). "Organization of Short-Term Verbal Memory in Language

Areas of Human Cortex: Evidence from Electrical Stimulation." Brain and
Language, 5, pp. 331-340.

Ijemann, G.A. (1991). "Cortical Organization of Language." The Journal of

Neuroscience, August, 11(8), pp. 2281-2287.
Ojemann, G.A. and Mateer, C. (1978). "Human Language Cortex: Localization of
Memory, Syntax, and Sequential Motor-Phoneme Identification Systems."
Science, vol. 205,28 September, pp. 1401-1403.

Paradis, M. (1990). "Language Lateralization in Bilinguals: Enough Already!" Brain

and Language, 39, pp. 576-586.

Paradis, M. (1992). "The Loch Ness Monster Approach to Bilingual Language

Lateralization: A Response to Berquier and Ashton." Brain and Language, 43,
pp. 534-537.

Paradis, M., Goldblum, M.-C. and Abidi, R. (1982). "Alternate Antagonism with
Paradoxical Translation Behavior in Two Bilingual Aphasic Patients." Brain and
Language, 15, pp. 55-69.

Schnitzer, M.L. (1982). "The Translational Hierarchy of Language," Chapter 12. In

M.A. Arbib, D. Caplan, and J.C. Marshall (Eds), Neural Models of Language
Processes. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Tzelgov, J. and Eben-Ezra, S. (1992). "Components of the Between-language

Semantic Priming Effect." European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(4),
pp. 253-272.

Vaid,J. (1987). "Visual Field Asymmetries for Rhyme and Syntactic Category
Judgements in Monolinguals and Fluent Early and Late Bilinguals." Brain and
Language, 30, pp. 263-277.

Ian Lieshout, P., Renier, W., Eling, P., de Bot, K. and Slis, I. (1990). "Bilingual
Language Processing after a Lesion in the Left Thalamic and Temporal
Regions." Brain and Language, 38, pp. 173-194.