Is there lexical competition in the recognition of L2 words for different-script bilinguals? An examination using masked priming with Japanese-English bilinguals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research examined whether a lexical competition process operates when different-script bilinguals process L2 words. In masked priming lexical decision experiments (67 ms prime duration), word neighbor primes facilitated target identification for Japanese-English bilinguals (Experiment 1) although the same primes produced inhibitory effects for L1 English readers (Experiment 2). Subsequent experiments confirmed that the facilitory priming effects are reliable (Experiment 4), and are not due to bilinguals' inability to process masked L2 primes to the lexical level (Experiments 3 and 4) or bilinguals relying on sublexical activation from neighbor primes in responding to upper-case English targets (Experiment 5). Some evidence of lexical competition was observed, however, with clearly visible primes (Experiment 6, using a 175 ms prime duration). These results suggest that different-script bilinguals deal with orthographic similarity in L2 words differently from L1 readers. The authors discuss ways in which the L2 lexicon of different-script bilinguals may be different. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".