Phonological Overlap Connects Semantically-Unrelated Concepts: Evidence from Neural Correlates of Language Co-activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language co-activation can strengthen associations between unrelated concepts. We tested whether cross-linguistic phonological overlap impacts semantic processing of non-overlapping written inputs. English monolinguals and Korean-English bilinguals were presented with an interlingual homophone (e.g., “moon”) and a word that is either semantically related (e.g., “lock” – “moon,” the sound /mu:n/ means "door" in Korean, which is semantically related with “lock”) or unrelated across languages (e.g., “fork” – “moon”). While their EEG was recorded, participants had to judge whether the word pairs were semantically related. A smaller N400 effect (difference in ERP amplitude between related and unrelated word pairs) was found in bilinguals than monolinguals, especially for word pairs related in meaning across languages. We conclude that phonological links across languages can connect unrelated concepts, reshaping the lexico-semantic network.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".