Effect of L2 accent and cognate status on bilingual word recognition and discrimination

​

The 11th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech

​

23-25 April 2025

^a University of Chicago

^b Pomona College

​

Yevgeniy Melguy^a and Ernesto Gutiérrez Topete^b

Introduction

1

• Decades of speech research show bilinguals maintain both languages active … even in monolingual speech contexts (cf. Kroll et al., 2014)

​

​

​

Introduction

2

• Decades of speech research show bilinguals maintain both languages active … even in monolingual speech contexts (cf. Kroll et al., 2014)
• One piece of evidence for parallel activation: the Cognate Facilitation Effect

​

​

​

Introduction

3

• What are cognate words?

​

​

​

​

​

Introduction

4

• What are cognate words?
• Words w/ shared form + meaning across languages

​

Telephone Teléfono

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Introduction

5

• What are cognate words?
• Words w/ shared form + meaning across languages

​

Telephone Teléfono

​

​

• What makes them special?

​

​

​

​

Introduction

6

• What are cognate words?
• Words w/ shared form + meaning across languages

​

Telephone Teléfono

​

​

• What makes them special?
• Cognates are acquired earlier and forgotten slower than non-cognates (De Groot & Keijzer, 2000)

​

​

​

​

​

Introduction

7

• What are cognate words?
• Words w/ shared form + meaning across languages

​

Telephone Teléfono

​

​

• What makes them special?
• Cognates are acquired earlier and forgotten slower than non-cognates (De Groot & Keijzer, 2000)
• Cognate facilitation effect: faster/more accurate recognition and production (e.g., Costa et al., 2005; Dijkstra et al., 1999, 2010)

​

​

​

​

​

​

Introduction

8

• What are cognate words?
• Words w/ shared form + meaning across languages

​

Telephone Teléfono

​

​

• What makes them special?
• Cognates are acquired earlier and forgotten slower than non-cognates (De Groot & Keijzer, 2000)
• Cognate facilitation effect: faster/more accurate recognition and production (e.g., Costa et al., 2005; Dijkstra et al., 1999, 2010)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Introduction

9

• parallel language activation in bilinguals affected by the phonetic (mis-)match between L1/L2 word pairs (Ju & Luce, 2004).

​

Introduction

10

• parallel language activation in bilinguals affected by the phonetic (mis-)match between L1/L2 word pairs (Ju & Luce, 2004).
• phonetic mismatch reduces activation of words in target language , increases activation of words in non-target language …

​

Introduction

11

• parallel language activation in bilinguals affected by the phonetic (mis-)match between L1/L2 word pairs (Ju & Luce, 2004).
• phonetic mismatch reduces activation of words in target language , increases activation of words in non-target language …

​

• Strength of cognate facilitation depends on L1-L2 similarity form similarity: more phonological/orthographic overlap → stronger facilitation (cf. Lijewska, 2020)

​

Introduction

12

• parallel language activation in bilinguals affected by the phonetic (mis-)match between L1/L2 word pairs (Ju & Luce, 2004).
• phonetic mismatch reduces activation of words in target language , increases activation of words in non-target language …

​

• Strength of cognate facilitation depends on L1-L2 similarity form similarity: more phonological/orthographic overlap → stronger facilitation (cf. Lijewska, 2020)

​

This study:

• How may sensitivity to phonetic detail in bilinguals’ L1 words interact with cognate status?

​

​

Introduction

13

• parallel language activation in bilinguals affected by the phonetic (mis-)match between L1/L2 word pairs (Ju & Luce, 2004).
• phonetic mismatch reduces activation of words in target language , increases activation of words in non-target language …

​

• Strength of cognate facilitation depends on L1-L2 similarity form similarity: more phonological/orthographic overlap → stronger facilitation (cf. Lijewska, 2020)

​

This study:

• How may sensitivity to phonetic detail in bilinguals’ L1 words interact with cognate status?
• Is phonetic sensitivity affected by type of processing required (lexical vs. phonetic processing)?

​

​

​

Participants

14

• Data collection split across in-lab and online (Prolific)

​

​

Participants

15

• Data collection split across in-lab and online (Prolific)
• 43 adult L1 Spanish - L2 English bilinguals living in USA

​

​

Participants

16

• Data collection split across in-lab and online (Prolific)
• 43 adult L1 Spanish - L2 English bilinguals living in USA
• Highly proficient in both Spanish and English
• Approximately even split between between English-dominant and balanced Spanish/English

​

​

Design

17

-100 ms

+100 ms

0 ms

​

/b d g/

/p t k/

/p t k/

/b d g/

Spanish

English

VOT

• Spanish and English stops differ in phonetic cues

​

Design

18

-100 ms

+100 ms

0 ms

​

/b d g/

/p t k/

/p t k/

/b d g/

Spanish

English

VOT

• Spanish and English stops differ in phonetic cues
• Spanish /p t k/ are short-lag (unaspirated)

​

C V

Design

19

-100 ms

+100 ms

0 ms

​

/b d g/

/p t k/

/p t k/

/b d g/

Spanish

English

VOT

• Spanish and English stops differ in phonetic cues
• Spanish /p t k/ are short-lag (unaspirated)
• English /p t k/ are long-lag (aspirated)

C V

Cʰ V

Design

20

-100 ms

+100 ms

0 ms

​

/b d g/

/p t k/

/p t k/

/b d g/

Spanish

English

VOT

• We manipulated VOT in Spanish voiceless stops to be English-like (aspirated)

​

C V

Cʰ V

Design

21

-100 ms

+100 ms

0 ms

​

/b d g/

/p t k/

/p t k/

/b d g/

Spanish

English

VOT

• We manipulated VOT in Spanish voiceless stops to be English-like (aspirated)
• Exposed listeners to Spanish words with native (Spanish-appropriate) or non-native (English-appropriate) VOT

C V

Cʰ V

Predictions

22

cama “bed”

[kama]

​

sounds

• L1 words will activate phonetically similar L2 cohort competitors (e.g., Spivey & Marian, 1999)

​

Predictions

23

cama “bed”

[kama]

​

cama

[kama]

• L1 words will activate phonetically similar L2 cohort competitors (e.g., Spivey & Marian, 1999)

​

Predictions

24

cama “bed”

[kama]

​

cama

[kama]

“bed”

• L1 words will activate phonetically similar L2 cohort competitors (e.g., Spivey & Marian, 1999)

​

Predictions

25

• L1 words will activate phonetically similar L2 cohort competitors (e.g., Spivey & Marian, 1999)

​

cama “bed”

[kama]

​

cama

[kama]

“bed”

comma

[kʰɑmə]

“comma”

Predictions

26

cama “bed”

[ kama ]

​

sounds

Predictions

27

cama “bed”

[ _ama ]

​

sounds

[ kʰ ]

Predictions

28

cama “bed”

[ kʰama ]

​

sounds

Predictions

29

• L2 accent→ reduced activation in target (L1)

cama “bed”

[ kʰama ]

​

sounds

Predictions

30

• L2 accent→ reduced activation in target (L1)

cama “bed”

[ kʰama ]

​

sounds

cama

[kama]

“bed”

Predictions

31

• L2 accent→ reduced activation in target (L1) + increased activation in L2 (Ju & Luce, 2004)

​

cama “bed”

[ kʰama ]

​

sounds

cama

[kama]

“bed”

comma

[kʰɑmə]

“comma”

Predictions

32

• L2 accent→ reduced activation in target (L1) + increased activation in L2 (Ju & Luce, 2004)
• Should lead to increased processing time and/or lower accuracy in word recognition

​

cama “bed”

[ kʰama ]

​

sounds

cama

[kama]

“bed”

comma

[kʰɑmə]

“comma”

Predictions (cognates)

33

• We should see same pattern for cognates: phonetic mismatch → reduced target activation

​

teléfono “telephone”

[ tʰelefono ]

​

sounds

teléfono

[ telefono ]

“telephone”

Predictions (cognates)

34

• We should see same pattern for cognates: phonetic mismatch → reduced target activation
• “Accent cost” could be offset by an increase in activation to target’s L2 translation pair → better RT + accuracy

teléfono “telephone”

[ tʰelefono ]

​

sounds

teléfono

[ telefono ]

“telephone”

telephone

[ tʰɛləfoʊn ]

Lexical decision

35

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /

​

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

word

non-word

Lexical decision

36

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /
• 45 non-words

​

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

word

/p/ pagubi

/t/ tusis

/k/ kulabo

​

non-word

​

non-word

Lexical decision

37

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /
• 45 non-words

​

non-word

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

word

non-word

​

/p/ pagubi

/t/ tusis

/k/ kulabo

​

Lexical decision

38

cognate

​

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /
• 45 non-words
• 96 real words (cognate vs. not)

​

​

non-word

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

word

teléfono “telephone”

​

Lexical decision

39

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /
• 45 non-words
• 96 real words (cognate vs. not)

​

​

non-word

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

word

teléfono “telephone”

casa “house”

cognate

non-cognate

Lexical decision

40

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /
• 45 non-words
• 96 real words (cognate vs. not)

​

​

non-word

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

word

teléfono “telephone”

casa “house”

cognate

non-cognate

Lexical decision

41

• All subj heard real words and non-words in Spanish, all starting with voiceless stops / p t k /
• 45 non-words
• 96 real words (cognate vs. not)
• native / non-native

​

​

non-word

“Word or nonword in Spanish?”

teléfono “telephone”

casa “house”

cognate

non-cognate

C V

Non-native VOT

Native VOT

Cʰ V

word

Analysis

42

• Mixed-effects linear models (lme4 package in R)
• Fixed effects: cognate status x VOT type (+ log word freq + word length)
• Maximal random effect structure justified by the design

​

Results - Lexical Decision

43

Non-native VOT → slower RT

​

Results - Lexical Decision

44

No main effect of cognate status

Results - Lexical Decision

45

no cognate x VOT interaction

Results - Lexical Decision

46

Non-native VOT → lower accuracy

Results - Lexical Decision

47

No main effect of cognate or cognate x VOT

​

AX discrimination

48

Same recording or different?

ISI = 500 ms

cognate /

non-cognate

• 96 trials with /ptk/ words

AX discrimination

49

Same recording or different?

clavado

“nailed”

cognate /

non-cognate

AX discrimination

50

Same recording or different?

cosa

“thing”

cognate /

non-cognate

Results - AX discrimination

51

Bias → Much higher accuracy in ‘same’ trials

​

​

​

Results - AX discrimination

52

Listener sensitivity well above chance

​

​

​

Results - AX discrimination

53

No effect of cognate status

​

​

​

Conclusions

54

​

• Bilinguals show higher processing cost and lower accuracy with ‘accented’ words… even when this does not introduce phonetic ambiguity!

​

Conclusions

55

​

• Bilinguals show higher processing cost and lower accuracy with ‘accented’ words… even when this does not introduce phonetic ambiguity!
• Across tasks, listeners were sensitive to phonetic differences between accented vs. native-like items

​

Conclusions

56

​

• Bilinguals show higher processing cost and lower accuracy with ‘accented’ words… even when this does not introduce phonetic ambiguity!
• Across tasks, listeners were sensitive to phonetic differences between accented vs. native-like items
• However, we failed to find evidence for a cognate facilitation effect …

​

​

​

Conclusions

57

​

• Bilinguals show higher processing cost and lower accuracy with ‘accented’ words… even when this does not introduce phonetic ambiguity!
• Across tasks, listeners were sensitive to phonetic differences between accented vs. native-like items
• However, we failed to find evidence for a cognate facilitation effect …
• surprising … but most evidence for cognate facilitation from visual word processing or production tasks

​

​

Conclusions

58

​

• Bilinguals show higher processing cost and lower accuracy with ‘accented’ words… even when this does not introduce phonetic ambiguity!
• Across tasks, listeners were sensitive to phonetic differences between accented vs. native-like items
• However, we failed to find evidence for a cognate facilitation effect …
• surprising … but most evidence for cognate facilitation from visual word processing or production tasks
• may not hold for highly proficient bilinguals in auditory processing tasks (Andras et al, 2022)

​

​

​

Thank you!

​

Citations

60

Andras, F., Rivera, M., Bajo, T., Dussias, P. E., & Paolieri, D. (2022). Cognate facilitation effect during auditory comprehension of a second language: A visual world eye-tracking study. International Journal of Bilingualism, 26(4), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211033359

Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Caño, A. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language, 94(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.12.002

De Groot, A. M. B., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What Is Hard to Learn Is Easy to Forget: The Roles of Word Concreteness, Cognate Status, and Word Frequency in Foreign‐Language Vocabulary Learning and Forgetting. Language Learning, 50(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00110

Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of Cognates and Interlingual Homographs: The Neglected Role of Phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654

Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003

Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two Languages in Mind: Bilingualism as a Tool to Investigate Language, Cognition, and the Brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414528511

Lijewska, A. (2020). Cognate Processing Effects in Bilingual Lexical Access. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution (1st ed., pp. 71–95). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316535967.005

Spivey, M. J., & Marian, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10(3), 281–284.

​

Appendix

Results - AX discrimination

62

Results - AX discrimination

63

64