中国EFL学习者英、汉同译词加工非对称性效应的ERPs研究

Sichuan International Studies University
An ERPs Study of The Asymmetrical Effects in Chinese EFL Learners’ Processing of English and Chinese Same-Translation Words
by
Cao Yingqian
A thesis
submitted to the Graduate School
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in
English Language and Literature
under
the supervision of
Professor Jiang Meng
Chongqing, P. R. China
May 2018
摘 要
同译词习得因其特殊性被认为是二语习得领域中的难点和重点之一。

在过去的几十年里，不少学者从理论和实证两方面对双语词汇加工的心理机制进行了探讨，但很少涉及到同译词加工尤其是同译效应的研究。

目前为止，国内外少部分学者通过对二语为英语的双语者或多语者在同译词加工中的研究中为一语同译效应的存在提供了多方面的证据，而二语同译效应的存在则因实验条件不同略有差异。

因此，基于前人研究，本文通过采用ERPs 技术，以“反应时”和 “脑电”作为指标，探讨中国EFL学习者英、汉词汇加工中的同译效应。

具体研究问题为：（1）中国EFL学习者在加工英语同译词对时是否会发生汉语（一语）同译效应? （2）中国EFL学习者在加工汉语同译词对时是否会发生英语（二语）同译效应?（3）中国EFL学习者在英、汉同译词对加工中的同译效应是否存在非对称性？
本研究采用 3（加工条件：无启动、阈下启动、阈上启动）× 2（加工语言：英语、汉语）被试内实验设计，分为六个部分：无启动英语词汇加工、阈下启动英语词汇加工、阈上启动英语词汇加工、无启动汉语词汇加工、阈下启动汉语词汇加工、阈上启动汉语词汇加工。

实验选取四川外国语大学22 名英语专业硕士研究生作为被试，采用词汇真假判断任务，以共享同一汉语翻译的英语词对和共享同一英语翻译的汉语词以及作为控制材料的英、汉语义无关词为目标刺激，要求被试对目标词汇进行真假判断。

实验在四川外国语大学“外语学习认知神经重点实验室”完成,通过 Neuroscan4.5 软件采集并分析脑电数据，采用单因素重复测量方差分析、三因素重复测量方差分析和事后多重比较对离线数据进行统计学分析，结果如下：
（1）行为数据显示，在无启动条件下的词汇加工中，被试对英语同译词对和英语无关词（F=.166，p=.848＞.05）的反应时无显著差异, 说明一语同译效应没有发生；被试对汉语同译词对（F=6.137，p=.026＜.05），汉语同译词一和汉语无关词（F=9.765，p=.007＜.05），汉语同译词二和汉语无关词（F=28.399，p=.000＜.05）的反应时均有显著性差异，说明二语同译效应没有发生。

在阈下启动条件下的词汇加工中，被试对英语同译词对（F=1.868，p=.192＞.05）的反应时无显著差异，对英语同译词对一和英语无关词（F=15.575，p=.001＜.05）、英语同译词对二和英语无关词（F=12.469，p=.003＜.05）的反应时有显著差异，说明一语同译效应发生；被试只有对汉语同译词对一和汉语无关词（F=5. 934，p=.028
＜.05）的反应时有显著差异，说明二语同译效应没有发生。

在阈上条件下的词汇加工中，被试对英语同译词对（F=8.814，p=.010＜.05）、英语同译词对一和英语无关词（F=40.13，p=.000＜.05）、英语同译词对二和英语无关词（F=5.366，p=.035＜.05）的反应时均有显著差异，说明一语同译效应没有发生；被试只有对汉语同译词一和汉语无关词（F=7.514, p=.015＜.05）的反应时有显著差异，说明二语同译效应没有发生。

（2）脑电数据显示，被试对三种语言加工条件下的英、汉词汇的加工均诱发了明显的N100、N200、N400三个脑电成分。

在无启动条件下，被试对英语词汇加工所诱发的N100、P200 和N400在波潜伏期、波幅和平均波幅上无显著差异，说明一语同译效应没有发生；被试对汉语同译词对和汉语无关词的加工在N400波幅上均无显著性差异（p=.755＞.05），说明二语同译效应没有发生。

在阈下启动条件下，被试对英语无关词的加工比英语同译词对诱发了潜伏期更长的N400，说明一语同译效应发生；被试对汉语词汇的加工所诱发的N100、P200和N400在波幅上无显著差异，说明二语同译效应没有发生。

在阈上启动条件下，被试对英语同译词对的加工(p=.664＞.05)在N400潜伏期上无显著差异，英语同译词对一和英语无关词(p=.018＜.05)，英语同译词对二和英语无关词(p=.004＜.05)在N400潜伏期上有显著差异，说明一语同译效应发生；被试对汉语同译词对的加工(p=.388＞.05)在N400波幅上无显著差异，汉语同译词一和汉语无关词（p=.001＜.05)，汉语同译词二和汉语无关词 (p=.018＜.05)有显著差异，说明二语同译效应发生。

综合行为数据和脑电数据可得出如下结论，在无启动条件下，一语同译效应和二语同译效应均没有发生；在阈下启动条件下，只有一语同译效应发生；在阈上启动条件下，一语同译效应和二语同译效应均发生。

这表明，中国EFL学习者在英、汉同译词对加工中的同译效应表现出非对称性。

关键词：同译词对；词汇加工；同译效应；事件相关电位
Abstract
Because of its particularity, the acquisition of the same-translation words has become one of the difficulties and key points in the field of research on second language acquisition. In the past few decades, many scholars have explored the psychological mechanism of bilingual lexical processing from the perspectives of theory and practice. However, these researches seldom involve the processing of same-translation words especially the same-translation effect. So far, few scholars at home and abroad have provided a number of all-round evidence for the existence of L1 same-translation effect by investigating the processing of same-translation words of bilinguals whose second language is English. However, the existence of L2 same-translation effect varies from experimental condition. Therefore, based on previous studies, this paper explores the same-translation effect in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English and Chinese vocabulary by using ERPs technology and taking reaction time and EEG as indicators. The specific research questions as follows: (1) Does Chinese (L1) same-translation effect happen in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English vocabulary? (2) Does English (L2) same-translation effect happen in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of Chinese vocabulary? (3) Is there an asymmetry of the same-translation effect in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English and Chinese vocabulary?
This study adopts a 3 (processing condition: non-priming, subliminal priming and supraliminal priming) ×2 (processing language: English and Chinese) within- subject design which consists of six parts: non-priming English vocabulary processing, subliminal priming English vocabulary processing, supraliminal priming English vocabulary processing, non-priming Chinese vocabulary processing, subliminal priming Chinese vocabulary processing, and supraliminal priming Chinese vocabulary processing. 22 postgraduates majoring in English from Sichuan International Studies University are selected as participants and are asked to perform
a lexical decision task. This study selects English word pairs shared one translation in Chinese, Chinese word pairs shared one translation in English and semantic unrelated words as target words which need to be judged whether are words or nonwords.
These experiments were carried out in the Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Foreign Language Learning at Sichuan International Studies University. ERPs data was obtained and analyzed by the software of Neuroscan 4.5 then was analyzed by adopting one-way ANOVO, repeated measures one-way ANOVO, three-factors repeated measures ANOVO and pairwise comparison through SPSS 16.0. The specific are as follows:
(1) The behavior data shows: under the condition of non-priming vocabulary processing, there is no significant difference (F=.166, p=.848＞.05) between participants’ reaction time of judging English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words, which shows that L1 same-translation effect does not happen; there are all significant differences between RT of judging Chinese same-translation pairs (F=6.137, p=.026＜.05), and between first words in Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (F=9.765, p=.007＜.05), and between second words in Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (F=28.399, p=.000＜.05), which shows that L2 same-translation effect does not happen. Under the condition of subliminal priming vocabulary processing, there is no significant difference (F=1.868, p=.192＞.05) between RT of judging English same-translation pairs, but significant differences between first words in English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words (F=15.575, p=.001＜.05), and between second words in English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words(F=12.469, p=.003＜.05), which shows that L1 same-translation effect happens; there is only significant difference between first words in Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (F= 5.934, p=.028＜.05), which shows that L2 same-translation effect does not happen. Under the condition of supraliminal priming
vocabulary processing, there are all significant differences between RT of judging English same-translation pairs (F=8.814, p=.010＜.05), and between first words in English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words (F=40.13, p=.000＜.05), and between second words in English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words (F=5.366, p=.035＜.05), which shows that L1 same-translation effect does not happen; but there is only significant difference between first words in Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (F=7.514, p=.015＜.05), which shows that L2 same-translation effect does not happen.
(2) The ERPs data shows that the participants’ processing of English and Chinese vocabulary under three kinds of processing conditions evokes obvious N100, P200 and N400. Under the non-priming condition, there is no significant difference of N100, N200 and N400 evoked over latency, amplitude and mean amplitude in the English vocabulary processing, which shows that L1 same-translation effect does not happen; there is no significant difference of N400 over amplitude between judging Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (p=.755＞.05), which shows that L2 same-translation effect does not happen. Under the subliminal priming condition, participants’ processing of English unrelated words evokes a N400 with longer latency than the processing of English same-translation pairs, which shows that L1 same-translation effect happens; but there is no significant difference of N100, P200 and N400 over amplitude between the processing of Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words, which shows that L2 same-translation effect does not happen. Under the supraliminal priming, there is no significant difference between the processing of English same-translation pairs (p=.664＞.05), significant difference between first words in English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words (p=.018＜.05), and between second words in English same-translation pairs and English unrelated words (p=.004＜.05) over latency of N400, which shows that L1 same-translation effect happens; there is no significant difference between the processing of Chinese same-translation pairs
(p=.38＞.05), significant differences between first words in Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (p=.001＜.05), and between second words in Chinese same-translation pairs and Chinese unrelated words (p=.018＜.05) over latency of N400, which shows that L2 same-translation effect happen.
By combining behavior data and ERPs data described above, under non-priming condition, neither L1 same-translation effect nor L2 same-translation effect happens; under subliminal priming condition, only L1 same-translation effect happens; under supraliminal priming condition, both L1 same-translation effect and L2 same-translation effect happens, which indicates that Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English and Chinese same-translation words shows an asymmetric effect.
Key words: same-translation pairs; lexical processing; same-translation effect; event-related potentials
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people. First and foremost, I would like to express my special appreciation and indebtedness to my supervisor, Professor Jiang Meng, both for his intellectual guidance and for his constant encouragement in the past three years. It was him that led me to the field of cognitive neurolinguistics and empirical study. He not only imparts me knowledge and gives me instructions in research methods, but also broadens my view and teaches me how to be a real man. With his help, I learn how to think independently and bravely pursue knowledge and all possibilities in academic researches. What’s more, he gives me inspiring advice, insightful criticism and expert guidance during the process of writing this thesis.
I would also like to give my cordial and sincere thanks to many professors who have informed me professional knowledge about linguistics through brilliant lectures, such as Professor Xiao Su, Professor Liu Yumei, Professor Duan Lingli, Professor Tan Chun, Professor Ma Wulin and other teachers in SISU. The profit that I gained from their profound knowledge, remarkable expertise and intellectual ingenuity will be of everlasting significance to my future research.
My thanks should also be extended to Sichuan International Studies University which provides me an excellent academic atmosphere. In particular, the Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience & Foreign Language Learning in SISU, without which I could not have carried out my research, enables me to conduct the experiment successfully.
I am also very grateful to my colleagues and friends, such as Li Liangliang, Pan Xueyao, Wang Wenwen, Cui Huiying and other students, who have helped me a lot in experimental design and data analysis.
Last but not the least, big thanks go to my family have always who give me unselfish love and support in life, which have enabled me to finish my thesis without worries behind.
Abbreviations
ANOV A: Analysis of Variance
CET：College English Test
COCA：Corpus of Contemporary American English
CVP: Chinese Vocabulary Processing
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
EPs: Evoked potentials
E-Prime: Experimenter’s Prime
ERPs: Event-related potentials
EVP: English Vocabulary Processing
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language
RT: Reaction Times
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
SISU: Sichuan International Studies University
SPSS: Statistical Product and Service Solutions
TEM: Test for English Majors
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Revised Hierarchical Model (14)
Figure 2.2 The BIA+ Model for Bilingual Recognition (16)
Figure 2.3 Lexical Development in L2: From the Formal Stage to the Integration Stage (18)
Figure 3.1 Procedure of Experiment One and Four (36)
Figure 3.2 Procedure of Experiment Two and Five (37)
Figure 3.3 Procedure of Experiment Three and Six (38)
Figure 3.4 Twenty-two Electrodes Montage for EEG Data Collection (39)
Figure 4.1 Grand Average Waveforms Elicited in Non-Priming EVP (51)
Figure 4.2 Grand Average Waveforms Elicited in Non-Priming CVP (55)
Figure 4.3 Grand Average Waveforms Elicited in Subliminal Priming EVP (58)
Figure 4.4 Grand Average Waveforms Elicited in Subliminal Priming CVP (62)
Figure 4.5 Grand Average Waveforms Elicited in in Supraliminal Priming EVP (65)
Figure 4.6 Grand Average Waveforms Elicited in Supraliminal Priming CVP (68)
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Results of the English Competence of Participants (32)
Table 3.2 Results of One-way ANOVO Materials of Experiment One (33)
Table 3.3 Results of One-way ANOVO Materials of Experiment Four (35)
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of RT in Non-priming EVP (43)
Table 4.2 Repeated Measures ANOVO Results of RT in Non-priming EVP (44)
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of RT in Non-Priming CVP (45)
Table 4.4 Repeated Measures ANOVO Results of RT in Non-Priming CVP (45)
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of RT in Subliminal Priming EVP (46)
Table 4.6 Repeated Measures ANOVO Results of RT in Subliminal Priming EVP . 46 Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics of RT in Subliminal Priming CVP (47)
Table 4.8 Repeated Measures ANOVO Results of RT in Subliminal Priming CVP 48 Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics of RT in Supraliminal Priming EVP (49)
Table 4.10 Repeated Measures ANOVO Results of RT in supraliminal priming EVP (49)
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of RT in Supraliminal Priming CVP (50)
Table 4.12 Repeated Measures ANOVO Results of RT Supraliminal Priming CVP 50 Table 4.13 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 70-180ms in Non-Priming EVP (52)
Table 4.14 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 180-260ms in Non-Priming EVP (53)
Table 4.15 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 260-500ms in Non-Priming EVP (53)
Table 4.16 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 70-180ms in Non-Priming CVP (55)
Table 4.17 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 180-260ms in Non-Priming CVP (56)
Table 4.18 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 260-500ms in Non-Priming CVP (57)
Table 4.19 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 70-180ms in Subliminal Priming EVP (59)
Table 4.20 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 180-260ms in Subliminal Priming EVP (60)
Table 4.21 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 260-500ms in Subliminal Priming EVP (60)
Table 4.22 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 70-180ms in Subliminal Priming CVP (62)
Table 4.23 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 180-260ms in Subliminal Priming CVP (63)
Table 4.24 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 260-500ms in Subliminal Priming CVP (64)
Table 4.25 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 70-180ms in in Supraliminal Priming EVP (65)
Table 4.26 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 180-260ms in in Supraliminal Priming EVP (66)
Table 4.27 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 260-500ms in in Supraliminal Priming EVP (67)
Table 4.28 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 70-180ms in Supraliminal Priming CVP (68)
Table 4.29 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 180-260ms in Supraliminal Priming CVP (69)
Table 4.30 Three Factors Repeated Measures ANOV A over Latency, Amplitude and Mean Amplitude in 260-500ms in Supraliminal Priming CVP (70)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One Introduction (1)
1.1 Research Background (1)
1.2 Research Objectives (3)
1.3 Research Methodology (4)
1.4 Significance of the Present Study (6)
1.5 Layout of the Thesis (7)
Chapter Two Literature Review (8)
2.1 Key Concepts (8)
2.1.1 Bilingual (8)
2.1.2 Mental Lexicon (9)
2.1.3 Same-Translation Effect (10)
2.1.4 Priming Effect (11)
2.2 Psycholinguistic Models of Bilingual Mental Lexical Representation (13)
2.2.1 The Revised Hierarchical Model (13)
2.2.2 Bilingual Interactive Activation Model + (15)
2.2.3 Model of Lexical Representation and Development in L2 (16)
2.3 Previous Studies of Same-translation Effect in Lexical Processing (18)
2.3.1 Research on L1 Same-translation Effect in Lexical Processing (19)
2.3.2 Research on L2 Same-translation Effect in Lexical Processing (21)
2.4 ERPs and Lexical Processing Research (23)
2.4.1 A Brief Introduction to ERPs Technique (23)
2.4.2 ERPs Technique Applied in Language Study (25)
2.4.3 ERPs Components Related to the Present Study (26)
Chapter Three Methodology (29)
3.1 Research Questions (29)
3.2 Research Design (29)
3.3 Research Method (32)
3.3.1 Participants (32)
3.3.2 Apparatus (32)
3.3.3 Materials (33)
3.3.4 Procedure (35)
3.4 Data Recording and Data Collection (38)
3.4.1 Data Recording (38)
3.4.2 Data Collection (39)
Chapter Four Results and Discussion (43)
4.1 Description and Discussion of Behavior Data (43)
4.1.1 The RT in Non-Priming English Vocabulary Processing (43)
4.1.2 The RT in Non-Priming Chinese Vocabulary Processing (44)
4.1.3 The RT in Subliminal Priming English Vocabulary Processing (45)
4.1.4 The RT in Subliminal Priming Chinese Vocabulary Processing (47)
4.1.5 The RT in Supraliminal Priming English Vocabulary Processing (48)
4.1.6 The RT in Supraliminal Priming Chinese Vocabulary Processing (50)
4.2 Description and Discussion of ERPs Data (51)
4.2.1 The ERPs Data in Non-Priming English Vocabulary Processing (51)
4.2.2 The ERPs Data in Non-Priming Chinese Vocabulary Processing (54)
4.2.3 The ERPs Data in Subliminal Priming English Vocabulary Processing (58)
4.2.4 The ERPs Data in Subliminal Priming Chinese Vocabulary Processing .. 61
4.2.5 The ERPs Data in Supraliminal Priming English Vocabulary Processing 64
4.2.6 The ERPs Data in Supraliminal Priming Chinese Vocabulary Processing 67 4.3 General Discussion (70)
Chapter Five Conclusions (74)
5.1 Major Findings (74)
5.2 Pedagogical Implications (75)
5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Study (76)
References (77)
Appendix 1: Criteria of Sorting English and Chinese Same-translation Pairs (83)
Appendix 2: Instructions and Materials for Experiment One, Two and Three (87)
Appendix 3: Instructions and Materials for Experiment Four, Five and Six (89)
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Research Background
After decades of researches on SLA (second language acquisition) from the perspectives of linguistics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics, scholars are more convinced that vocabulary acquisition is the foundation of SLA (Verhallen & Schoonen, 1998). V ocabulary acquisition is a lifelong cognitive process and the most important language component for learners for many reasons. Firstly, from the perspective of theoretical linguistics, different schools have gradually put research of vocabulary on a more prominent position. For example, in the Chomsky’s original theoretical framework, syntax is the absolute focus of research. But with the development of his theory, the present Minimalist Program shows that parameters have become a part of the lexicon “by attaching parameters to the vocabulary” (Cook & Newson, 2007). Language acquisition can be largely attributed to vocabulary acquisition (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Luo Han (2008) also points out that cognitive linguistics, a newly developed school of linguistics, opposes complete separation of vocabulary and syntax at the beginning. Cognitive linguists believe that vocabulary, morphology and syntax are not independent but a continuum, and there is no essential difference between them. Secondly, from the perspective of language acquisition and language pedagogy, vocabulary is the foundation of SLA, which can affect the listening, speaking, reading, writing and other abilities of Chinese EFL learners. Finally, from the perspective of social communication function, “Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (Wilkins D.A., 1972).
Based on this, since 1970s, the studies on L2 vocabulary have been paid more and
more attention from theoretical and empirical aspects. On one hand, the theoretical studies on L2 vocabulary acquisition focus on the construction of mental models on the bilingual lexical development and representation. Nowadays, there are mainly three models: Kroll and Stewart (1994)’s the RHM (Revised Hierarchical Model), Dijkstra and Van Heuven (2005)’s the BIA+ (Bilingual Interactive Activation Model) and Jiang Nan’s (2000) the model of lexical representation and development in L2 (second language), which reveals the essence of L2 vocabulary process from different aspects. On the other hand, the empirical studies on L2 V ocabulary acquisition focus on revealing the mechanism of human brain when processing bilingual words by using some techniques of cognitive neuroscience, such as RT (reaction time), ERPs (event-related potentials), eye-tracking, NIR (near infra-red imaging), fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and so on. With ERPs technique, many scholars adopt different experiment tasks including lexical decision, semantic categorization, semantic matching, translation recognition etc., and different experimental materials including unrelated words, regular and irregular past tense and stem verb forms, same-translation pairs etc.
Among these ERPs experiments, the cross-language priming as experiment paradigm and semantic-related words as experiment materials are mostly adopted to explore the cognitive neuroscience mechanism of processing bilingual words. Firstly, priming paradigm was proposed by Meyer et al. in 1971, which can be used to detect the intrinsic processing of priming stimuli by observing the automatic relationship between priming stimulus and target stimulus. And since 1960s, the experiments with masked priming paradigm have gradually become popular (Kouider & Dehaene, 2007) in the L2 vocabulary acquisition. Secondly, the same-translation pairs are the crucial experiment materials of seeing the evidence of existence of same-translation effect in language. Jiang originally introduced the same-translation pairs and the same- translation effect in 2002. He defines same-translation pairs as two words in one language that typically are translated into a single word in another language. For
example, the two English words “question” and “problem”, are translated into a single Chinese word “问题” (Jiang, 2002). And in his experiments, the same-translation effect is found as evidence for the presence of L1 (first language) semantic structures in L2 lexical representations. His experiments record response over latencies and error rates of subjects by using two types of English word pairs: same-translation pairs and different-translation pairs as critical stimuli and semantic-relatedness judgment as tasks. After that, there are also many researches about the same-translation effect (e.g. Elston-Guttler et al., 2005; Elston-Guttler & Williams, 2008; Wolff & Ventura, 2009, Chwilla & Kolk, 2003).
Just as the above mentioned, most researches have studied the same-translation effect and have achieved some valuable outcomes. However, there are still some limitation of previous studies. Firstly, few studies use Chinese as experiment materials. Secondly, the outcomes of previous studies predict only the same- translation effect in L1 on L2, but not vice versa. Thirdly, the methodologies are restricted to RT technique rather than ERP technique. In view of this, this research adopts the idiomatic cross-language priming paradigm but three different priming types: no priming, subliminal priming and supraliminal priming and same-translation pairs as experiment material to comparatively analyze the same-translation effect both in L1 and L2 of Chinese EFL (English as a foreign language) learners. This study applies ERPs technique with high temporal resolution to record the RT and EEG (electroencephalograph) data, which will give a more direct and reliable evidence.
1.2 Research Objectives
By applying ERPs technique and lexical decision task, this study intends to investigate the L1 same-translation effect and L2 same-translation effect in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English same-translation pairs and Chinese same-translation
pairs. The research questions are as follows:
(1) Does Chinese (L1) same-translation effect happen in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English vocabulary?
(2) Does English (L2) same-translation effect happen in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of Chinese vocabulary?
(3) Is there an asymmetry of the same-translation effect in Chinese EFL learners’ processing of English and Chinese vocabulary?
1.3 Research Methodology
To answer the research questions formulated above, this study adopts a 3 (processing condition: non-priming, subliminal priming and supraliminal priming) × 2 (processing language: English and Chinese) within-subject design, and the whole study is completed through six experiments: non-priming English vocabulary processing, subliminal priming English vocabulary processing, supraliminal priming English vocabulary processing, non-priming Chinese vocabulary processing, subliminal priming Chinese vocabulary processing, and supraliminal priming Chinese vocabulary processing. Six ERPs experiments are carried out to provide evidence for same-translation effect in two languages during lexical processing, in which RT and EEG data are collected. Twenty-two postgraduates majored in English from SISU (Sichuan International Studies University) are paid to participate in the experiments. Each experiment consists of 240 trials are presented by six blocks on the computer screen with a random order.
In Experiment one, the experiment stimuli consist of 40 groups of words with two types: 40 pairs of English same-translation words (e.g. mistake & error) and corresponding pseudowords (e.g. tamiske & rorer) and 40 English semantic unrelated words (e.g. painter) as filler and its corresponding pseudowords (e.g. nipater). These
240 words are controlled in three aspects: frequency in COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), number of syllables, voiceless consonant and voiced consonant. Subjects are asked to judge whether the experimental stimulus is a word or not as quickly as possible and as correctly as possible. Experiment two has the same materials as targeted words with experiment two but adding one group of Chinese words as priming in a subliminal priming paradigm. The priming words are the corresponding Chinese translation words (e.g. “错误”) of English same-translation words (e.g. mistake & error). Experiment three has the same materials as priming and targeted words with Experiment two but in a supraliminal priming way. These three experiments can help to see the influence of priming condition on same-translation effect.
Experiment four, five and six individually adopt similar procedures, tasks and paradigm with that of experiment one, two and three but different materials. In Experiment four, the experimental stimuli also consist of 40 groups of words with two types: 40 pairs of Chinese same-translation words (e.g. “表格”&“桌子”) and corresponding pseudowords (e.g. “表校”&“桌人”) and 40 Chinese semantic unrelated words (e.g.“香蕉”) as filler and its corresponding pseudowords (e.g.“香是”). These 240 words are controlled in three aspects: frequency in Sketch Engine and stroke number. Subjects are asked to judge whether the experimental stimulus is a word or not as quickly as possible and as correctly as possible. Experiment five has the same materials as targeted words with experiment four but adding one group of English words as priming in a subliminal priming paradigm. The priming words are the corresponding English translation words (e.g. table) of two Chinese same-translation words (e.g. “桌子”&“表格”). Experiment six has the same materials as priming and targeted words with Experiment five but in a supraliminal priming paradigm.
The experiments in this research were carried out in the Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Foreign Language Learning at SISU. The experimental procedures were programmed by E-prime 2.0, and the EEG data were obtained by Neuroscan 4.5。