Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on Mar 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069241233388
International Journal of Bilingualism
1 –28
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13670069241233388
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijb
Cross-language activation
and semantic judgements of
translation ambiguous words
among Chinese–English bilinguals
Ting Deng
South China Normal University, China; Xinhua Senior High School, China
John W. Schwieter
Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Huan Lv
Foshan University, China; South China Normal University, China
Yan Zhang
South China Normal University, China; Bangxi Primary School of Guangzhou Panyu, China
Jie Yuan and Ruiming Wang
South China Normal University, China
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: Translation ambiguous words are lexical items with one-to-many
equivalents in another language. Some of these equivalents are more dominant (i.e., more
frequently used) than others. The aim of the present study is to explore non-target language
activation of translation ambiguous words among Chinese–English bilinguals.
Methodology: The implicit priming paradigm was used in three experiments to explore the
activation of primary and secondary first language (L1) translations when bilinguals process
second language (L2) translation ambiguous words (Experiment 1); the effect of L1 translation
repetition on the processing of semantically related words in an L2 (Experiment 2); and whether
such patterns are observed in the reverse direction, that is, whether L2 primary translations are
activated when processing L1 translation ambiguous words (Experiment 3).
Corresponding author:
Ruiming Wang, Philosophy and Social Science Laboratory of Reading and Development in Children and Adolescents
(South China Normal University), Ministry of Education, & Center for Studies of Psychological Application, School of
Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Email: wangrm@scnu.edu.cn
1233388IJB0010.1177/13670069241233388International Journal of BilingualismDeng et al.
research-article2024
Original Article
2 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
Data and Analysis: We use repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to analyse
the data.
Findings/conclusions: Experiment 1 showed that when processing pairs of semantically
unrelated (SU) L2 words, primary L1 translation equivalents are activated, but not secondary L1
translation equivalents. Experiment 2 found that when the target L2 words were semantically
related, performance was facilitated when their translation equivalents were the same L1 word
(i.e., implicitly repeated). Similarly, Experiment 3 showed that when processing L1 words, the
L2 translation equivalents are automatically activated. Moreover, under semantically related
conditions, implicit repetition of the non-target L2 translation facilitated L1 judgements, while
under SU conditions, L2 implicit repetition hampered L1 judgements.
Originality: Most research on cross-language activation has examined L1 activation during L2
processing. However, few have investigated the reverse and findings from these few studies
are inconsistent. Moreover, research on cross-language activation has mainly investigated the
activation of primary translation equivalents, with very little focus on secondary translations. The
present study uses the implicit priming paradigm to address these gaps in the literature.
Significance: The findings support interactive theories of bilingual processing.
Keywords
Ambiguous word translation, bilingualism, semantic relatedness, cross-language activation,
implicit priming
Introduction
Cross-language activation is an ongoing area of research in bilingualism. Although quite a bit of
attention has been given to examining the activation of a first language (L1) during usage of a
second language (L2), less focus has been given to the reverse. Moreover, previous research has
mainly explored primary translation equivalents, with very little acknowledgement of translation
ambiguity. Translation ambiguity is a common cross-language phenomenon in which there is not a
clear, one-to-one correspondence between words in one language and the other (Degani et al.,
2016; Prior et al., 2007; Tokowicz et al., 2002). In the present study, we use the implicit priming
paradigm (Thierry & Wu, 2007) in three experiments to explore non-target language activation
among Chinese (L1)–English (L2) bilinguals. In three experiments, we analyse whether English
words with multiple corresponding translation equivalents in Chinese are activated when pro-
cessed under SU (Experiment 1) and related (Experiment 2) conditions, and whether Chinese
words automatically activate English translations in both semantically related and unrelated condi-
tions (Experiment 3).
Background
Ambiguous word translation among bilinguals
Translation ambiguity is the one-to-many mapping of word forms and meanings between a source
and target language (Schwieter & Prior, 2020), often including homographs, homophones, homon-
ymy, and morphological ambiguities (Prior et al., 2011). Tokowicz et al. (2002) investigated the
correspondence between 562 English words translated into Dutch and German and found that 25%
Deng et al. 3
of them had multiple meanings in Dutch and 40% of them had multiple meanings in German. Other
studies reporting on the correspondence between English words translated into Hebrew and
Spanish found that 55% of the words translated into Hebrew (Smith et al., 2012) and 60% trans-
lated into Spanish had multiple meanings (Prior et al., 2007). Lyons (1977) classifies translation
ambiguities into homographs and polysemants according to the degree of semantic relatedness
between the words in question. A homograph is a word that has two or more meanings that are not
semantically related (e.g., the word ‘adapt’, translated into Chinese, has two unrelated meanings of
‘适应’ and ‘改编’). A polysemant is a word that has two or more meanings that are semantically
related (e.g., the word ‘branch’ can have two different, yet similar semantic meanings of ‘树枝’ and
‘分支机构’) (Li & Wang, 2013). Degani and Tokowicz (2010) divided translational ambiguities
into form-ambiguous words, meaning-ambiguous words, and unambiguous words. Form-
ambiguous words are those that have only one meaning in a given language, but have two or more
related meanings in another language with different orthographic forms. Meaning-ambiguous
words refer to those which have more than one meaning in a language, and when translated into
another language, they correspond to different meanings. And unambiguous words refer to words
that have only one meaning in both languages (X.-L. Wang et al., 2019). Y. Wang and Zhang (2017)
further divided meaning-ambiguous words into semantically related meaning-ambiguous words
and SU meaning-ambiguous words.
Primary and secondary translations
Prior research has examined bilinguals’ performance when processing translation ambiguous
words and has found that responses are slower and less accurate compared to words that have only
one translation equivalent (Basnight-Brown et al., 2018; Laxén & Lavaur, 2010; Tokowicz &
Kroll, 2007). These effects emerge regardless of whether the target language is the more dominant
L1 or a weaker L2 (Boada et al., 2013). Moreover, some translation equivalents in a target lan-
guage can be considered more dominant (i.e., more frequently used) than others (Eddington &
Tokowicz, 2013; Laxén & Lavaur, 2010; Prior et al., 2013; Y. Wang & Zhang, 2013). Laxén and
Lavaur found that translation performance was faster and more accurate when words were pre-
sented with their primary translations compared to when they were presented with their secondary
translations. When examining the semantic relatedness between the various translation possibili-
ties, the results further showed that translation recognition was faster when a target word’s (e.g.,
bateau in French) translations were related in meaning (e.g., boat and ship) compared to when the
target’s (e.g., argent) translations were unrelated (e.g., money and silver). Taken together, this
growing body of research suggests that translating words that have multiple lexical possibilities is
not only slower and less accurate, but also sensitive to factors, such as semantic relatedness and
whether the translations are primary or secondary equivalents. For Chinese–English bilinguals, an
additional complication of translation ambiguous words is that they often do not have a one-to-
one semantic correspondence. For example, the Chinese words corresponding to the concept of
‘interest’ include ‘兴趣’ and ‘利息’, and these same characters can also be translated into multiple
English words. Conversely, the English words corresponding to ‘垃圾’ include ‘garbage’, ‘litter’,
‘trash’, and ‘rubbish’.
The extent to which the primary and secondary translations are activated when bilinguals pro-
cess target words remains unclear. Some researchers have compared bilinguals’ performance when
translating from English into Spanish, German, Dutch, or Hebrew, and have found that primary
translation equivalents are indeed activated. However, the number of meanings that the primary
translation has plays a modulating role (Degani et al., 2016). Zhou et al. (2019) administered trans-
lation recognition tasks to Chinese–English bilinguals to explore the impact of L2 proficiency and
4 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
sentence context on the processing of translation ambiguous words. The results showed that par-
ticipants were slower and less accurate when recognizing translation ambiguous words compared
to unambiguous words. Moreover, the response of recognizing semantically related translation
ambiguous words was faster and more accurate than recognizing SU translation ambiguous words.
Crucially, this effect was more pronounced for secondary compared to primary translations. Similar
findings were reported by Y. Wang and Zhang (2013) who used the cross-language masking prim-
ing paradigm to examine Chinese–English bilinguals’ recognition of translation ambiguous words.
The results showed that translation recognition was faster and more accurate for primary compared
to secondary translation equivalents.
Implicit priming paradigm
The implicit priming paradigm has been employed to study non-target language activation during
target language processing (Thierry & Wu, 2007). In this experimental design, materials are exclu-
sively presented in one language, but there is an implicit connection to another language. Thierry
and Wu asked Chinese–English bilinguals to perform semantic judgements about visually pre-
sented English word pairs. Half of these pairs had a Chinese translation pair containing a repeated
character (e.g., ‘train–ham’ translated into Chinese is ‘火车–火腿’) and the other half of the word
pairs’ translations did not have a repeated character (e.g., ‘apple–table’ is ‘苹果–桌子’). The results
found that L2 words pairs whose translation in Chinese had a repeated first character elicited
smaller N400 components, indicating that L1 translations were automatically and unconsciously
activated when processing L2 words. In another study, Y.-J. Wu and Thierry (2010) examined
whether Chinese–English bilinguals automatically activated sounds and spellings of L1 words dur-
ing L2 word comprehension. The results showed that L1 sound, but not spelling, induced smaller
N400s, suggesting that bilinguals automatically activate L1 sounds but not their orthographic rep-
resentations, during L2 comprehension.
Most studies exploring cross-language activation focus on the degree of L1 activation during L2
processing (Hermans et al., 2011; Higby et al., 2019; Sunderman & Kroll, 2006). Fewer studies
have addressed the reverse, and among these studies, there have been inconsistent findings: while
some report that bilinguals activate L2 words when processing L1 words (Ang et al., 2016; R.-M.
Wang et al., 2011), others find that L2 words are not activated when processing L1 words (Alvarez
et al., 2003; Sebastian-Gallés et al., 2006). To our knowledge, there is no study to date which
makes use of the implicit priming paradigm to investigate L2 activation during L1 word process-
ing. Employing this experimental design is critical to our understanding of non-target language
activation. Moreover, research in this area has mainly examined the activation of primary transla-
tion equivalents with little attention to secondary translations. Consequently, it is unclear as to
whether secondary translations are automatically activated. The present study will explore these
important issues.
Present study
We use the implicit priming paradigm to investigate cross-language activation during processing
of translation ambiguous words in three experiments among Chinese (L1)–English (L2) bilinguals.
Our aim is: to explore the activation of primary and secondary L1 translations when Chinese–
English bilinguals process L2 translation ambiguous words (Experiment 1); to examine whether
the activation of L1 translation ambiguous words is sensitive to semantic relatedness (Experiment
2); and to measure whether such activation is bidirectional (Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, the
implicit phonological repetition priming paradigm was adopted for Chinese–English bilinguals
Deng et al. 5
who performed an English semantic judgement task. The task explores whether all translation
equivalents in the L1 (Chinese) are automatically activated when processing ambiguous words in
the L2 (English). In Experiment 2, the implicit Chinese repeated priming paradigm was adopted
for Chinese–English bilinguals who were administered an English semantic correlation judgement
task. The experiment explores whether processing L2 words under semantically related conditions
automatically activates L1 words. In Experiment 3, the implicit English repeated priming paradigm
was used for Chinese–English bilinguals who performed semantic correlation judgements in their
L1 to explore whether their L2 is automatically activated. The task examines similarities and dif-
ferences between semantically related and unrelated cross-language activation. In the next sec-
tions, we provide further details about the three experiments.
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 employs the implicit sound repetition design to examine performance of L2 semantic
judgements among Chinese–English bilinguals. In doing so, we explore whether primary and sec-
ondary translation equivalents in the L1 are automatically activated when processing L2 translation
ambiguous words. Our hypothesis in Experiment 1 is that both primary and secondary translation
equivalents of Chinese will be activated when processing English words.
Method
Participants. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power3 (Faul et al., 2007) with a
medium effect size (d = .50), and an alpha of .05. The results showed that a sample of 21 partici-
pants was required to achieve a power (1-βerr prob) of .80. In Experiment 1, we recruited 23
Chinese–English bilinguals (seven males and 16 females), who were majoring in English at
South China Normal University, and had passed the Test for English Majors Band Four (TEM4)
in China. None of these individuals participated in other experiments in this study. The partici-
pants’ average age was 22.6 years and they reported starting to learn English on average at
8.3 years. All participants were right-handed and had no history of neurological or psychological
disorders. The experiment was approved by the Ethics Review Committee at the same university
and participants signed an informed consent form before taking part in the experiment. They were
given a modest monetary remuneration after their participation.
Materials and design. Experiment 1 has a single factor within-subject design in which the type
of Chinese translation word condition (primary Chinese translation with a sound repetition vs.
secondary Chinese translation with a sound repetition vs. SU) is the independent variable. The
experiment also contains a semantically related condition as a control. The dependent variables
are reaction times (RTs) and accuracy.
The experimental materials are 136 pairs of English words, with each pair including a prime and
a target word (see Appendix 1). Among these words, there were 34 pairs in each of the following
conditions: primary Chinese translation sound repetition (hereinafter referred to as PSR), second-
ary Chinese translation sound repetition (SSR), SU, and semantic-related (SR). In the PSR condi-
tion, the primary Chinese translation of the target English word and the Chinese translation of the
prime English word had initial sound repetitions and were not semantically related. For example,
the prime ‘prediction’ and the target word ‘bathroom’ in Chinese are ‘预测’ (‘yùcè’) and ‘浴室’
(‘yùshì’). In the SSR condition, the secondary Chinese translations of the target and primes had an
initial sound repetition and again, were not semantically related. For example, the prime ‘history’
and the target word ‘interest’, when translated into Chinese is, respectively, ‘历史’, ‘利息’, the
6 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
pronunciation of ‘历’ and ‘利’ are both ‘lì’. The primary translation of ‘interest’ in Chinese is
‘兴趣’ (‘xìngqù’) and the secondary translations are ‘历史’ (‘lìshǐ’) and ‘利息’ (‘lìxī’). In the SU
condition, the prime and target word were SU and had no sound repetition when translated into
Chinese. For example, the prime ‘stone’ and target word ‘clothes’ when translated into Chinese are
‘石头’ (‘shítou’) and ‘衣服’ (‘yīfú’), respectively. In the SR condition, which was used as a control
condition, the prime and target words were semantically related and had no sound repetition when
translated into Chinese. For example, the prime ‘winter’ and the target word ‘cold’ are ‘冬天’
(‘dōngtiān’) and ‘寒冷’ (‘hánlěng’), respectively.
Before the experiment, we evaluated the semantic relatedness and translation accuracy of all
experimental materials, along with the primary and secondary Chinese translations of the target
words in the SSR condition. Word frequency and length were matched and can be seen in Table 1.
According to the MCword frequency database and t-tests, word length and frequencies of the
experimental words under the three conditions were matched, ps > .05. Twenty college students
from the same research population with a score of 425 or more on the College English Test-6 (CET-
6) were selected to determine the Chinese primary translation equivalents and secondary transla-
tion equivalents of 100 English words. Based on the Chinese primary and secondary translations
that were consistently identified by more than half of the subjects and on a database of Chinese
translation norms for English words (Wen & van Heuven, 2017), the target words for the SSR
condition were determined. Twenty-two additional college students with a score of 425 or more on
the CET-6 were selected to evaluate the semantic relatedness and translation accuracy of these
materials. Semantic relatedness was assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale in which ‘1’ meant
‘not related at all’ and ‘5’ meant ‘very related’. The average score of all word pairs in the SR condi-
tion was higher than 4 and the average scores of those in the PSR, SSR, and SU conditions were
lower than 2.5. T-tests revealed that the difference between the scores of PSR and SU was not
significant, p = .23; the scores of SSR and SU were significantly different, p < .001; and the scores
of PSR and SSR were significantly different, p < .001. Translation accuracy scores were also based
on a 5-point Likert-type scale in which ‘1’ meant ‘not accurate at all’ and ‘5’ meant ‘very accurate’.
Translation accuracy of all words was rated higher than 4.
Procedure. The experiment was carried out on computers using E-Prime 2.0 software. There were
10 practice trials and 136 formal trials which were randomly presented. In each trial, a fixation
point (+) appeared for 800 ms in the centre of the screen followed by a blank screen for 500 ms. A
prime word in English then appeared for 800 ms followed by a blank screen of 500 ms. A target
Table 1. Descriptive information about the materials in Experiment 1.
Condition Semantic relatedness Word length Word frequency
PSR Prime 1.76 ± .24 6.44 ± 1.86 68.40 ± 67.96
Target 5.65 ± 1.57 88.65 ± 102.79
SSR Prime 2.03 ± .27 5.26 ± 1.33 56.62 ± 65.18
Target 5.09 ± 1.16 112.36 ± 73.53
SU Prime 1.63 ± .21 5.24 ± 1.60 72.51 ± 65.96
Target 6.00 ± 2.49 104.78 ± 98.87
SR (filler) Prime 4.67 ± .24 5.29 ± 1.49 73.76 ± 56.60
Target 5.44 ± 2.09 89.75 ± 72.50
Note. PSR: primary Chinese translation sound repetition; SSR: secondary Chinese translation sound repetition; SU:
semantically unrelated; SR: semantic-related.
Deng et al. 7
word in English was presented and participants were required to quickly and accurately judge
whether the prime and the target word were semantically related by pressing the ‘f’ key for ‘related’
and the ‘j’ key for ‘unrelated’. If a participant did not respond within 2,500 ms, the screen went
blank, and the next trial began. Response keys were counterbalanced across participants and the
entire experiment lasted around 20 minutes.
Results
We first eliminated RT data that were less than 200 ms and ±3 SDs from the overall mean RT and
accuracy data that were ±3 SDs from the overall mean accuracy. We also removed one participant
from the analyses whose accuracy rate was less than 75%. The mean and SD of RTs and accuracy
for PSR, SSR, and SU can be seen in Table 2.
For RTs, the results of the repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the
main effect of condition did not reach significance, F(2,42) = .965, p = .389, ηp
2 = .044. For accu-
racy, there was a main effect of condition, F(2,42) = 7.229, p = .002, ηp
2 = .256. Post hoc analyses
found that the accuracy of the PSR condition was significantly lower than the SSR condition,
p = .001, d = .757, the accuracy of PSR was lower than SU, p = .008, d = .641, and the accuracy of
SSR was no different than that of SU, p = .623 (see Figures 1 and 2).
Table 2. Experiment 1 mean reaction times (in ms) and accuracy (in %).
Condition Reaction time Accuracy
PSR 864.34 ± 119.80 95.41 ± 3.54
SSR 856.04 ± 117.87 98.09 ± 2.37
SU 869.42 ± 107.35 97.68 ± 3.06
Note. PSR: primary Chinese translation sound repetition; SSR: secondary Chinese translation sound repetition; SU:
semantically unrelated.
Figure 1. Experiment 1 accuracy rates (in %) per condition.
**p < .01.
8 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
Discussion
The results from Experiment 1 found no significant differences in RTs between the PSR and SU
conditions. However, in terms of accuracy, responses in the PSR condition had more errors than in
the SU condition, indicating that Chinese–English bilinguals activate sounds found in the L1 trans-
lations of L2 words when judging their semantic relatedness (see also Y.-J. Wu & Thierry, 2010).
Further analyses demonstrated that these sounds were found in the primary, but not secondary,
Chinese translations. These patterns support the reordered access model which holds that the
meanings of ambiguous words are activated in sequence according to their relative frequency and
that prior context will affect the lexical stage of reading (Duffy et al., 1988). Given that the fre-
quency of use of primary translation words is generally higher than that of secondary translations,
the corresponding L1 primary translations appear to be more readily activated and accessible.
The results of Experiment 1 also showed that the cross-linguistic activation of L1 sounds inter-
fered with L2 semantic judgements as reflected by lower accuracy in the PSR condition compared
to the SU condition. These findings are consistent with a study by Friesen and Jared (2012) in
which cross-language semantic activation was examined among French–English and English–
French bilinguals. In their study, the bilinguals performed a category recognition task on word
pairs containing both French and English words. The participants’ responses were slower and less
accurate when they judged homophones between languages, indicating that phonology was
involved in the activation of cross-language semantics.
In addition to Friesen and Jared (2012), other studies have reported interference of behavioural
performance by L1 activation during L2 processing. For instance, T. Zhang et al. (2011) found that
Chinese–English bilinguals responded faster to English word pairs whose Chinese translations
repeated the first morpheme compared to translations with no repeated morpheme. One possible
explanation for this difference is that lexical decisions take into account orthographic information
and, thus, a repeated morpheme likely facilitates target recognition. These findings from these
studies are supported by our results from Experiment 1. In another study, W. Zhang et al. (2023)
recorded event-related brain potentials among Chinese–English bilinguals who engaged in an
implicit translation-priming task involving L2 (English) word pairs with negative or positive affec-
tive valence. The results showed that negative L2 words induced a refractory period during which
Figure 2. Violin graphs of Experiment 1 accuracy rates (in %) per condition.
Deng et al. 9
cross-language lexical access was blocked. In other words, when the prime word was negative, the
access to L1 translation of the target word was blocked and thus relatedness judgements were
accelerated if the two words were not semantically related. We should note that a limitation of our
study is that it did not account for the emotional valence of words, particularly prime words, across
conditions. In light of findings from the work of W. Zhang et al. (2023), future work should control
for emotional valence of primes and targets in the experimental design.
Due to material limitations, the cross-language activation from English to Chinese examined in
Experiment 1 was conducted under semantically independent conditions, while cross-language
activation under semantically relevant conditions was not investigated. Therefore, in Experiment 2,
we explored the activation of non-target languages under semantically relevant conditions.
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 uses the implicit Chinese character repeated priming paradigm in which Chinese–
English bilinguals performed semantically related judgement tasks on English translation ambigu-
ous words. Our core manipulation seeks to explore whether L2 prime and target word processing
is affected by whether their L1 translations are the same or different. We hypothesize that responses
will be faster and more accurate when translation equivalents are the same.
Method
Participants. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power3 (Faul et al., 2007) with
a medium effect size (d = .50), and an alpha of .05. The results showed that a sample of 21 par-
ticipants was required to achieve a power (1-βerr prob) of .80. Twenty-three Chinese–English
bilinguals (two males and 21 females), who were majoring in English at South China Normal
University, and had passed the test for English majors-4 (TEM-4) in China, participated in
Experiment 2. None of these individuals participated in other experiments in this study. The
participants’ average age was 23.7 years and they reported starting to learn English on average at
8.5 years. All participants were right-handed and had no history of neurological or psychological
disorders. The experiment was approved by the Ethics Review Committee at the same university
and all participants signed an informed consent form before taking part in the experiment. They
were given a modest monetary remuneration after their participation.
Materials and design. Experiment 2 uses a single factor within-subject design in which the type of
Chinese translation word condition (semantically related condition with the same Chinese transla-
tion [‘SSC’] vs. semantically related condition with different Chinese translations [‘SDC’] vs. SU
condition with different Chinese translations [‘SU’]) is the independent variable. The dependent
variables are RTs and accuracy.
The materials included 180 pairs of English words, with each pair consisting of a prime and a
target word (see Appendix 2). Among the pairs, there were 45 pairs of words in the SSC condition,
45 pairs of words in the SDC condition, and 90 pairs of words in the SU condition (i.e., 45 pairs
for experimental comparison and 45 pairs as filler items). The prime in the SSC condition was
semantically related to the target word and the two words shared the same translation. For example,
‘disturb’ and ‘bother’ are both ‘打扰’ (‘dǎrǎo’). In the SDC condition, the prime and target word
were semantically related and when translated into Chinese, they have two different translations.
For example, ‘argue’ and ‘fight’ are translated into Chinese as ‘争吵’ (‘zhēngchǎo’) and ‘打架’
(‘dǎjià’), respectively. In the SU condition, the prime and target word were SU and when translated
into Chinese, they are different words. For instance, ‘wife’ and ‘city’ are translated into Chinese as
‘妻子’ (‘qīzi’) and ‘城市’ (‘chéngshì’), respectively.
10 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
Before the experiment, we evaluated the semantic relatedness and translation accuracy of all
experimental materials. Word frequency and length were matched and can be seen in Table 3.
According to the MCword frequency database and t-tests, word length and frequencies of the
experimental words under the three conditions were matched, ps > .05. Seventeen age-matched
students from the same university with a score of 425 or more on the CET-6 were selected to evalu-
ate the semantic relatedness and translation accuracy of all materials. Moreover, after Experiment
1, we realized that it may have been a limitation to not have examined participants’ familiarity with
the materials, and as such, before Experiment 2, we asked the age-matched participants to also
make these judgements. Semantic relatedness was assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale in which
‘1’ meant ‘not related at all’ and ‘5’ meant ‘very related’. The scores of word pairs in the SSC and
SDC conditions were rated higher than 3.5 points, and the scores of word pairs in the SU condition
were rated lower than 2.5 points: The difference between the scores of SSC and SDC was not sig-
nificant, p = .076, but the scores between the SSC and SU conditions were significantly different,
p < .001, and the scores between the SDC and SU conditions were significantly different, p < .001.
Familiarity scores were also rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale in which ‘1’ meant ‘not familiar at
all’ and ‘5’ meant ‘very familiar’. The result showed that familiarity of all words was higher than
4 points and the difference in familiarity between the conditions was not significant, ps > .05.
Translation accuracy ratings, also given on a 5-point Likert-type scale, showed that all words were
rated higher than 4 points, and the difference in translation accuracy between the conditions was
not significant, ps > .05.
Procedure. The experiment was carried out on computers using E-Prime 2.0 software and included
16 practice trials and 180 formal trials. The experimental materials were presented randomly. In
each trial, a fixation point (+) appeared for 500 ms in the centre of the screen followed by a blank
screen of 500 ms. A prime in English then appeared for 500 ms followed by a blank screen of
500 ms.1 A target word in English was presented and participants were required to quickly and
accurately judge whether the prime and the target word were semantically related by pressing the
‘f’ key for ‘related’ and the ‘j’ key for ‘unrelated’. If a participant did not respond within 2,500 ms,
the screen went blank, and the next trial began. Response keys were counterbalanced across par-
ticipants and the entire experiment lasted around 15 minutes.
Results
We first eliminated RT data that were less than 200 ms and ±3 SDs from the overall mean RT and
accuracy data that were ±3 SDs from the overall mean accuracy. The mean and SD of RTs and
accuracy for the SSC, SDC, and SU conditions can be seen in Table 4.
Table 3. Descriptive information about materials in Experiment 2.
Semantic relatedness Familiarity Word length Word frequency
SSC Prime 4.64 ± .29 4.96 ± .11 6.49 ± 1.85 65.86 ± 96.81
Target 4.97 ± .06 6.69 ± 1.83 53.22 ± 55.95
SDC Prime 4.49 ± .33 4.96 ± .10 6.76 ± 1.98 44.62 ± 44.02
Target 4.90 ± .20 6.42 ± 1.88 72.09 ± 77.87
SU Prime 1.58 ± .33 4.89 ± .19 6.58 ± 2.08 55.47 ± 48.19
Target 4.94 ± .13 6.62 ± 1.96 62.48 ± 79.92
Note. SSC: semantically related condition with the same Chinese translation; SDC: semantically related condition with
different Chinese translations; SU: semantically unrelated.
Deng et al. 11
For RTs, the results of the repeated-measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of con-
dition, F(2,44) = 66.11, p < .001, ηp
2 = .75. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that: RTs in the SSC
condition were significantly faster than the SDC condition, p < .001, d = –.65; RTs in SSC were
significantly faster than SU, p < .001, d = –1.314; and RTs in SDC were significantly faster than
SU, p < .001, d = –.66 (see Figures 3 and 4).
For accuracy, the results revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(2,44) = 8.647, p = .001,
ηp
2 = .282. Post hoc analyses showed that accuracy in the SSC condition was significantly higher
than both the SDC condition, p = .001, d = 1.01, and the SU condition, p = .002, d = .928. There was
no significant difference in accuracy between SDC and SU, p = .76. These results can be seen in
Figures 5 and 6.
Discussion
The results of Experiment 2 showed that the SSC condition elicited faster RTs and more accurate
responses compared to the SU condition. This suggests that under semantically related conditions,
the implicit repetition of Chinese translations improves L2 judgements and that L1 translation
equivalents are automatically activated when processing L2 words. This result supports the hypoth-
esis that non-target language activation occurs during target language processing (Degani et al.,
Figure 3. Experiment 2 reaction times per condition.
***p < .001.
Table 4. Experiment 2 mean reaction times (in ms) and accuracy (in %).
Condition Reaction time Accuracy
SSC 752.77 ± 119.22 95.93 ± 3.49
SDC 832.20 ± 124.45 89.87 ± 7.76
SU 917.27 ± 129.05 90.41 ± 7.39
Note. SSC: semantically related condition with the same Chinese translation; SDC: semantically related condition with
different Chinese translations; SU: semantically unrelated.
12 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
2018; Sunderman & Kroll, 2006; Talamas et al., 1999; R.-M. Wang et al., 2011). Meyer and
Schvaneveldt (1971) first proposed the concept of the semantic priming effect, an observation in
which semantically related words can be understood more quickly and accurately. This effect
appears not only within a language but also between languages. The results of Experiment 2 show
that responses in the SSC and SDC conditions were significantly faster than in the SU condition,
reflecting a semantic priming effect that is consistent with previous studies (Neely, 1991; Sperber
et al., 1979).
The results from Experiment 2 also found that under semantically related conditions, implicit
L1 translation repetition facilitated the judgement of L2 semantic relatedness. The reader will
Figure 4. Violin graphs of Experiment 2 reaction times per condition.
**p < .01.
Figure 5. Experiment 2 accuracy rates (in %) per condition.
**p < .01.
Deng et al. 13
recall in Experiment 1 that under SU conditions, the accuracy of bilinguals’ judgements was sig-
nificantly lower when Chinese translation equivalents had repeated initial sounds compared to
when Chinese translations had no repeated initial sounds. Taken together, the findings from
Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that Chinese–English bilinguals will automatically activate Chinese
when processing English, and that semantic relatedness has a moderating effect on this process: in
SU conditions, the implicit repetition of Chinese translation equivalents interferes with semantic
relatedness judgements of English word pairs, whereas under semantically related conditions, the
implicit repetition of Chinese translation equivalents assists such judgements. The question that
remains to be addressed is whether these patterns also emerge when L2 is the non-target language.
Experiment 3 will examine this possibility.
Experiment 3
Experiment 3 employs the implicit English sound repetition design to examine performance of L1
semantic judgements among Chinese (L1)–English (L2) bilinguals. In doing so, we explore
whether translation equivalents in the L2 are automatically activated when processing L1 transla-
tion ambiguous words in semantically related and unrelated conditions. Our hypothesis is that
Chinese–English bilinguals will automatically activate their corresponding English words when
processing Chinese words, and that semantic relatedness will play a moderating role in the activa-
tion process.
Method
Participants. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power3 (Faul et al., 2007) with a
medium effect size (d = .50), and an alpha of .05. The results showed that a sample of 33 partici-
pants was required to achieve a power (1-βerr prob) of .80. Thirty-three Chinese–English bilin-
guals (three males and 30 females), who were majoring in English at South China Normal
University, and had passed the TEM-4 in China, participated in Experiment 3. None of these
individuals participated in any other experiments in this study. Their average age was 23.6 years
Figure 6. Violin graphs of Experiment 2 accuracy rates (in %) per condition.
14 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
and they reported starting to learn English on average at 9.0 years. All participants were right-
handed and had no history of neurological or psychological disorders. The experiment was
approved by the Ethics Review Committee at the same university and all participants signed an
informed consent form before taking part in the experiment. They were given a modest monetary
remuneration after their participation.
Materials and design. Experiment 3 uses a 2 × 2 within-subject design in which the independent
variables are semantic relatedness (semantically related vs. SU) and English translation repetition
type (English translation repeated vs. English translation non-repeated). Thus, the four conditions
are the semantically related English translation repeated condition (‘SR’), the semantically related
English translation non-repeated condition (‘SN’), the SU English translation repeated condition
(‘UR’), and the SU English translation non-repeated condition (‘UN’). The dependent variables are
RT and accuracy.
The experimental materials were 120 pairs of Chinese words consisting of 30 pairs of words in
SR, 30 pairs for the SN condition, 30 pairs in the UR condition, and 30 pairs in the UN condition
(see Appendix 3). In SR, the prime and target words were semantically related and when translated
into English, they both had the same equivalent (e.g., the prime ‘号码’ and the target word ‘数字’
are both ‘number’ in English). In SN, the prime and target words were also semantically related but
when translated into English, they have different translations (e.g., the prime ‘科学’ [‘science’] and
the target word ‘调查’ [‘research’]). In UR, the primes and target words were SU, but when trans-
lated into English, they have the same translation equivalent (e.g., the prime ‘火车’ and the target
word ‘训练’ are both ‘train’ in English). In UN, the prime and target words were SU, but when
translated into English, they have different translations (e.g., the prime ‘世界’ (‘world’) and the
target word ‘比较’ (‘compare’).
Before the experiment, we evaluated all the experimental materials for word frequency. As
shown in Table 5, according to the MCword frequency database and t-tests, there was no signifi-
cant difference in word frequency for priming and target words in the various conditions, ps > .05.
We also assessed the materials in terms of semantic relatedness and familiarity of the English
translated words among a group of age-matched students whose CET-6 scores were 425 or more.
These 22 participants provided their ratings on 5-point Likert-type scales. For semantic relatedness
(‘1’ = ‘not related at all’, ‘5’ = ‘very related’), the scores of all word pairs in the two semantically
related conditions were higher than 3.5 points, and the scores of all word pairs in the two SU condi-
tions were lower than 2.5 points. The difference between the SR and SN conditions was not signifi-
cant, p > .05. The scores between UR and UN, between SR and UR, and between SN and UN were
Table 5. Description information about materials in Experiment 3.
Semantic relatedness Familiarity Concreteness Word frequency (%)
SR Prime 4.43 ± .22 4.69 ± .24 3.26 ± .78 .014 ± .026
Target 4.69 ± .24 3.15 ± .74 .012 ± .017
SN Prime 4.43 ± .23 4.79 ± .21 3.26 ± .67 .014 ± .019
Target 4.79 ± .23 3.13 ± .83 .012 ± .013
UR Prime 2.34 ± .37 4.70 ± .36 3.36 ± 1.00 .013 ± .032
Target 4.70 ± .36 3.07 ± .98 .012 ± .021
UN Prime 1.93 ± .25 4.74 ± .22 3.41 ± .03 .015 ± .024
Target 4.68 ± .23 3.06 ± .97 .014 ± .016
Note. SR: semantic-related; SN: semantically related English translation non-repeated condition; UR: semantically
unrelated English translation repeated condition; UN: semantically unrelated English translation non-repeated condition.
Deng et al. 15
all significantly different ps < .001. For familiarity (‘1’ = not familiar at all, ‘5’ = very familiar), the
results showed that the familiarity of all words was higher than 4 points and the difference in
familiarity between the conditions was not significant, ps > .05. Moreover, we added a concrete-
ness judgement to the materials of Experiment 3. For the concreteness of Chinese words (‘1’ = not
concrete at all, ‘5’ = very concrete), the results showed no differences between the various condi-
tions, ps > .05.
Procedure. The experiment was carried out on computers using E-Prime 2.0 software and
included 20 practice trials and 120 formal trials. The experimental materials were presented ran-
domly. In each trial, a fixation point (+) appeared for 500 ms in the centre of the screen followed by
a blank screen of 500 ms. A prime in Chinese then appeared for 500 ms followed by another blank
screen of 500 ms. A target word in Chinese appeared and participants were required to quickly and
accurately judge whether the prime and the target word were semantically related by pressing the
‘f’ key for ‘related’ and the ‘j’ key for ‘unrelated’. If a participant did not respond within 2500 ms,
the screen went blank, and the next trial began. Response keys were counterbalanced across par-
ticipants and the entire experiment lasted around 15 minutes.
Results
We first eliminated RT data that were less than 200 ms and ±3 SDs from the overall mean RT and
accuracy data that were ±3 SDs from the overall mean accuracy. We also removed one participant
from the analyses whose accuracy rate was less than 65%. The mean and SD of RTs and accuracy
rates for the SR, SN, UR, and UN conditions can be seen in Table 6.
For RTs, the results of the ANOVA showed that the main effect of semantic relatedness was
significant, F(1,31) = 21.058, p < .001, ηp
2 = .405, such that, RTs in semantically related conditions
were faster than in SU conditions. The main effect of English translation repetition versus non-
repetition was not significant, F(1,31) = 1.701, p = .202, ηp
2 = .052, nor was its interaction with
semantic relatedness, F(1,31) = 2.773, p = .106, ηp
2 = .082.
For accuracy, there was a main effect of semantic relatedness, F(1,31) = 4.688, p = .038,
ηp
2 = .131. Specifically, the accuracy rate in the semantically related condition was higher than in
the SU condition. There was also a significant main effect of English translation repetition,
F(1,31) = 5.121, p = .031, ηp
2 = .142, such that the accuracy of the English translation repetition
condition was lower than that of the non-repetition condition. Moreover, the interaction between
semantic relatedness and English translation repetition was significant, F(1,31) = 14.054, p = .001,
ηp
2 = .312. Post hoc analyses showed that in semantically related conditions, accuracy in SR was
marginally higher than in SN, F(1,31) = 3.64, p = .066. For SU conditions, UN was significantly
more accurate than UR, F(1,31) = 16.11, p < .001. In repetition conditions, accuracy in SR was
Table 6. Experiment 3 mean reaction times (in ms) and accuracy (in %).
Condition Reaction time Accuracy
SR 723.03 ± 154.00 92.72 ± 7.42
SN 729.11 ± 154.38 89.25 ± 7.19
UR 816.59 ± 201.59 82.06 ± 14.17
UN 793.46 ± 186.37 90.84 ± 9.95
Note. SR: semantic-related; SN: semantically related English translation non-repeated condition; UR: semantically unre-
lated English translation repeated condition; UN: semantically unrelated English translation non-repeated condition.
16 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
significantly higher than in UR, F(1,31) = 12.98, p = .001. In non-repetition conditions, there was
no significant difference in accuracy between SN and UN, p = .496. These findings are shown in
Figures 7 and 8.
Discussion
Experiment 3 explored cross-language activation of corresponding L2 translation equivalents dur-
ing L1 word processing in semantically related and unrelated contexts. The implicit priming para-
digm was used to create conditions with repeated and non-repeated English translations. The
results revealed an expected semantic priming effect: judging L1 word pairs that were semantically
Figure 7. Experiment 3 accuracy (in %) per condition.
Note. S+ stands for semantically related; S– stands for semantically unrelated; R+ stands for English translation words
repeated; R– stands for English translation words non-repeated.
*p < .1; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Figure 8. Violin graphs of Experiment 3 accuracy (in %) per condition.
Deng et al. 17
related was faster and more accurate than unrelated pairs. Moreover, in semantically related condi-
tions, the participants were more accurate judging L1 word pairs when their translation equivalents
were the same. However, in SU conditions, participants were less accurate in judging word pairs
when their translations were the same. This implies that non-target language translation repetition
promotes the processing of semantically related L1 word pairs but interferes with the processing of
SU word pairs. It also suggests that when performing exclusively in their L1, bilinguals automati-
cally activate L2 translation equivalents.
General discussion
This study investigated cross-language activation among Chinese–English bilinguals when pro-
cessing translation ambiguous in semantically related and unrelated conditions. The results showed
that primary Chinese translation words were activated earlier and faster than secondary Chinese
translation words. According to the distributed conceptual feature model (DCFM) (Van Hell & De
Groot, 1998), this is caused by the fact that primary Chinese translation words share more semantic
nodes with English words than do secondary translation words. Our study validates the theoretical
viewpoint of the DCFM regarding the processing of ambiguous words in translation between two
languages which are quite typologically distinct. At the same time, this result also supports the
reordering accessibility model of polysemous words (M.-Q. Wu, 2014), and has enriched and
expanded the research on ambiguous words in translation. In this study, for the first time, the
implicit priming paradigm was used to verify the bidirectional nature of non-selective processing
in a single context. The results showed that bilinguals automatically activated the non-target lan-
guage in a monolingual environment, regardless of whether the non-target language was the L1 or
L2. This result suggests that in bilingual language comprehension, both languages are activated,
and task requirements do not inhibit the activation of the non-target language. This finding sup-
ports the theory of non-target language activation more effectively, helps to reveal the non-selec-
tivity of non-target language activation, and expands the selection of materials used to study
non-target language activation. In future work, the unique nature of Chinese can be further exploited
to bolster our understanding of cross-language activation.
In three experiments, Chinese–English bilinguals judged the semantic relatedness between
prime and target words. Experiment 1 investigated whether bilinguals activate L1 primary and
secondary translation equivalents when processing pairs of SU L2 translation ambiguous words.
Cross-language activation emerged for primary translation equivalents, but not for secondary
translations. Experiment 2 examined whether these effects would be observed when prime and
target L2 had L1 translations that were the same (i.e., implicitly repeated) or distinct (i.e., non-
repeated). The results demonstrated that implicit repetition of L1 translations facilitated perfor-
mance, and particularly when the translations were semantically related. Experiment 3 explored
the opposite direction by testing whether implicitly repeated or non-repeated L2 translation equiva-
lents are activated when processing pairs of semantically related or unrelated L1 translation ambig-
uous words. The findings revealed that when prime and target L1 words were semantically related,
implicit repetition of the non-target L2 translation facilitated L1 judgements. However, when
prime and target L1 words were SU, L2 implicit repetition hampered L1 performance. We will
elaborate on the implications of these findings below.
Cross-language activation of primary and secondary translations
In line with previous findings (Y.-J. Wu & Thierry, 2010), Experiment 1 found that when process-
ing L2 words, Chinese–English bilinguals activated their L1 primary translation equivalents but
18 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
not their secondary translations. According to the DCFM, word meanings are divided across mul-
tiple nodes that are shared with translation equivalents. Word translation is faster when more nodes
are shared between translation equivalents (Laxén & Lavaur, 2010). In the context of the model,
the results of Experiment 1 demonstrate the integrated nature of semantic nodes between L2 target
words and their primary L1 translations. Moreover, the detection of cross-language activation of
primary translations was based on implicit sound repetition. Similar findings were reported in an
eyetracking study by Shook and Marian (2019) in which Spanish–English bilinguals heard words
in their L2 English and were asked to click on the corresponding picture from a set of pictures. The
results of their study showed longer and more frequent eye fixations on pictures whose translations
had phonological similarity with the L2 target word’s translation. Although Shook and Marian’s
study explored cross-language activation arising when processing auditorily presented words, the
present study examined visual word processing and provides additional evidence that words pro-
cessed in single-language contexts activate their translation equivalents, with further spreading
activation to phonological competitors not implicitly seen.
Effects of semantic relatedness on non-target language activation
Among the findings from Experiment 2, was the result that that semantic relatedness regulated
the influence of non-target language (L1) activation on target language (L2) processing. Although
the role of semantic relatedness in cross-language activation has been given some attention in
previous studies, a study by Y. Zhang et al. (2020) investigated the effects of semantic related-
ness on L2 word learning. In the study, Chinese–English bilinguals learned three types of English
pseudowords: the first type had two semantically related Chinese translation equivalents; the
second type had two SU Chinese translation equivalents; and the third type had only one Chinese
translation equivalent. Analyses on electrophysiological data revealed that for pseudowords with
two semantically related L1 translations, the second translation equivalent learned induced
larger N400 components compared to learning the first translation equivalent. Contrarily, for
pseudowords with two SU L1 translations, the second translation learned was associated with
larger Late Positive Component (LPCs) compared to the first. Zhang et al.’s findings indicate
that learning a secondary translation equivalent is facilitated when it is semantically related to
the primary translation equivalent and hampered when it is unrelated. In the present study, our
results from Experiment 2 showed that when prime and target words were semantically related,
the implicit repetition of the non-target language translation equivalents assisted the processing
of the target language, and under SU conditions, such implicit repetition interfered with target
language processing.
The bidirectional nature of cross-language activation among bilinguals
To our knowledge, the results of the present study are the first to show that when processing trans-
lation ambiguous words in a monolingual context, cross-language activation is bidirectional.
Bilinguals’ language systems, and their semantic, phonetic, and orthographic representations over-
lap in distinct ways. Due to the connective, dynamic nature between the two languages, when
bilinguals process the target language, various representations of the non-target language are also
activated (Zhao & Mo, 2010). Our results suggest that regardless of whether the non-target lan-
guage is the more-dominant L1 or the weaker L2, cross-language activation of translation equiva-
lents will occur. These findings align with a recent speech production study by Liu et al. (2020).
The results from their modified picture naming priming experiment found that activation of non-
target language phonology occurred regardless of whether production was in the L1 or L2. The
Deng et al. 19
current study offers similar evidence for the bidirectional nature of cross-language activation in
language comprehension, and the findings that facilitation and interference effects of translation
repetition in semantically related and unrelated conditions, respectively, are consistent with previ-
ous studies of L1 activation during L2 processing (Qu, 2019; H. Zhang et al., 2012). Finally, we
found a stable semantic priming effect in both L1 and L2 monolingual contexts such that perfor-
mance in semantically related conditions was significantly faster and more accurate than in unre-
lated conditions.
Conclusion
In three experiments, this study examined non-target language activation among bilinguals when
making semantic relatedness judgements about pairs of words in a target language. The main find-
ings can be summarized as follows: (1) cross-language activation of translation ambiguous words
appears to follow a sequential pattern that is dependent on their relative frequency/dominance
(i.e., primary translation equivalents are activated, but secondary translations are not); (2) implicit
repeated translations facilitated performance, specifically in semantically related conditions, but
not in unrelated conditions; and (3) the nature of cross-language activation during translation
ambiguous words is bidirectional. Taken together, these findings offer evidence of non-target lan-
guage activation during language processing among bilinguals.
Data availability
Data, materials, and study analysis code are available by contacting the corresponding author. None of the
work in this study was preregistered.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32371114)
and the STI 2030—Major Projects 2021ZD0200500.
ORCID iDs
John W. Schwieter https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1798-3915
Ruiming Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3277-0953
Note
1. Because accuracy rates were quite high in Experiment 1, the duration of the prime was shortened from
800 to 500 ms in Experiments 2 and 3.
References
Alvarez, R., Holcomb, P., & Grainger, J. (2003). Accessing word meaning in two languages: An event-related
brain potential study of beginning bilinguals. Brain and Language, 87(2), 290–304.
Ang, C., Lv, H., Zhou, Y.-C., Li, B.-W., & Wang, R.-M. (2016). The familiarity influence on the activation of
non-target language in language comprehension of unskilled Chinese-English bilinguals. Psychological
Development and Education, 32(1), 26–32. (In Chinese)
20 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
Basnight-Brown, D., Kazanas, S. A., & Altarriba, J. (2018). Translation ambiguity in Mandarin-English
bilinguals: Translation production differences in concrete, abstract, and emotion words. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 10(4), 1–28.
Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R., Gavilán, J. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Effect of
multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 183–197.
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C., da Luz Fontes, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Determinants of transla-
tion ambiguity: A within and cross-language comparison. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(3),
290–307.
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Hajajra, W. (2018). Cross-language semantic influences in different script bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(4), 782–804.
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 13(3), 299–314.
Duffy, S., Morris, R., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of
Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.
Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Examining English-German translation ambiguity using primed trans-
lation recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 442–457.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis
program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Friesen, D., & Jared, D. (2012). Cross-language phonological activation of meaning: Evidence from category
verification. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 145–156.
Hermans, D., Ormel, E., van Besselaar, R., & Van Hell, J. (2011). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech
production is dynamic: How language ambiguous words can affect cross-language activation. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1687–1709.
Higby, E., Donnelly, S., Yoon, J., & Obler, L. (2019). The effect of second-language vocabulary on word
retrieval in the native language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 812–824.
Laxén, J., & Lavaur, J. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: Effects of number of trans-
lations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 13(2), 157–183.
Li, H.-L., & Wang, T.-S. (2013). Development of the mental representation of lexically ambiguous words in
Chinese EFL learners: An ambiguity advantage perspective. Modern Foreign Languages, 36(4), 379–
386+438. (In Chinese)
Liu, Y.-Y., Wang, R.-M., Li, L., & Wu, L.-M. (2020). Phonological activation of non-target language dur-
ing unbalanced Chinese-English bilinguals’ language production. Studies of Psychology and Behavior,
18(1), 39–44. (In Chinese)
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1 and 2). Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, D., & Schvaneveldt, R. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence
between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234.
Neely, J. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings
and theories. Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition, 11(1), 264–336.
Prior, A., Kroll, J., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation
performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 458–474.
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexi-
cal variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research
Methods, 39(4), 1029–1038.
Prior, A., Wintner, S., MacWhinney, B., & Lavie, A. (2011). Translation ambiguity in and out of context.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 93–111.
Qu, C. (2019). The influence of L2 lexical proficiency on the L1 automatic activation during L2 lexical
processing of Chinese-English bilinguals. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 51(4), 560–571.
(In Chinese)
Schwieter, J. W., & Prior, A. (2020). Translation ambiguity. In R. Heredia, & A. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual
lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 96–125). Cambridge University Press.
Deng et al. 21
Sebastian-Gallés, N., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., de Diego-Balaguer, R., & Díaz, B. (2006). First- and second-
language phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(8),
1277–1291.
Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2019). Covert co-activation of bilinguals’ non-target language: Phonological
competition from translations. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(2), 228–252.
Smith, Y., Walters, J., & Prior, A. (2012). Translation norms for Hebrew and English. Edmond J. Safra
Technical Report, 1, 96–125.
Sperber, R., McCauley, C., Ragain, R., & Weil, C. (1979). Semantic priming effects on picture and word
processing. Memory and Cognition, 7(5), 339–345.
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An
investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28(3), 387–422.
Talamas, A., Kroll, J., & Dufour, R. (1999). From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second-
language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(1), 45–58.
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language
comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12530–12535.
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within
and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 727–779.
Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J., De Groot, A., & Van Hell, J. (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch-
English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 34(3), 435–451.
Van Hell, J., & De Groot, A. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness
and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 193–211.
Wang, R.-M., Deng, H.-S., Li, J.-J., Li, L., & Fan, M. (2011). The activation of non-attended language
in language comprehension of Chinese-English bilinguals. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(7), 771–783.
(In Chinese)
Wang, X.-L., Jiang, Y., Fang, N., & Zhang, P. (2019). The interaction of type, translation dominance and
concreteness in the processing of translation-ambiguous words. Contemporary Foreign Languages
Studies, 23(2), 57–69. (In Chinese)
Wang, Y., & Zhang, J.-J. (2013). The interaction of semantic and syntactic information in the Chinese-
English bilinguals’ early recognition of polysemous words. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(3), 298–309.
(In Chinese)
Wang, Y., & Zhang, J.-J. (2017). Cross-language recognition of translation-ambiguous words by Chinese-
English learners. Foreign Language World, 4, 71–78+87. (In Chinese)
Wen, Y., & van Heuven, W. (2017). Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. Behavior Research
Methods, 49(3), 1006–1019.
Wu, M.-Q. (2014). A review of cross-language activation in English polysemous word recognition in Chinese-
English bilinguals. Journal of Hubei Correspondence University, 27(9), 154–155. (In Chinese)
Wu, Y.-J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese-English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. Journal of
Neuroscience, 30(22), 7646–7651.
Zhang, H., Chen, B., Guo, T., & Ma, F. (2012). Automatic activation of Chinese during English word read-
ing in non-proficient Chinese-English bilinguals. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 44(5),
719–727. (In Chinese)
Zhang, T., Van Heuven, W. J., & Conklin, K. (2011). Fast automatic translation and morphological decom-
position in Chinese-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1237–1242.
Zhang, W., Jończyk, R., Wu, Y., Lan, Y., Gao, Z., Hu, J., Thierry, G., & Gao, S. (2023). Brain potentials
reveal how emotion filters native language access when bilinguals read words in their second language.
Cerebral Cortex, 33(13), 8783–8791.
Zhang, Y., Lu, Y., Liang, L., & Chen, B. (2020). The effect of semantic similarity on learning ambiguous
words in a second language: An event-related potential study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1633.
(In Chinese)
22 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
Zhao, J.-H., & Mo, L. (2010). The effect of context on semantic access of second language sentences among
less proficient Chinese-English bilinguals. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42(9), 920–928. (In Chinese)
Zhou, G., Chen, Y., Feng, Y., & Zhou, R. (2019). Processing of translation-ambiguous words by Chinese-
English bilinguals in sentence context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(5), 1133–1161. (In
Chinese)
Author biographies
Ting Deng graduated from the School of Psychology, South China Normal University and is currently work-
ing as a psychology teacher in Xinhua Senior High School,China. Her research interests include language
comprehension conversion in bilinguals and the psychology of learning, and one of her research has published
in Acta Psychologica.
John W. Schwieter is a Professor of Spanish and Linguistics and Director of the Language Acquisition,
Multilingualism, and Cognition Laboratory and Bilingualism Matters at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada.
His research interests include: psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic approaches to multilingualism and lan-
guage acquisition; translation, interpreting, and cognition; and second language teaching and learning. He is
Executive Editor of Bilingual Processing and Acquisition (Benjamins) and Co-Editor of Cambridge Elements
in Second Language Acquisition (CUP). Some of his research has appeared in journals such as: Applied
Linguistics Review; Behavioral Sciences; Bilingualism: Language and Cognition; Frontiers in Psychology;
International Journal of Bilingualism; International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism;
Language Learning; The Mental Lexicon; among others.
Huan Lv is a Doctoral Candidate in the School of Psychology at South China Normal University and a teacher
of Foshan University in China. Her research interests include second language comprehension and second
language acquisition. Some of her research has appeared in journals like International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health.
Yan Zhang graduated from School of Psychology, South China Normal University, and is currently working
as a psychology teacher in Bangxi Primary School of Guangzhou Panyu. Her research interests are socio-
linguistic cognition and adolescent and child development and education.
Jie Yuan is a distinguished researcher at the School of Psychology, South China Normal University. His
research interests include language processing, unconscious processing and social cognition, and magnetic
resonance studies of social cognition. Some of his research has appeared in journals such as Cognition;
Journal of Neuroscience (Journal Club); Human Brain Mapping; among others.
Ruiming Wang is a Professor of Psychology and Deputy Dean of the School of Psychology at South China
Normal University in China. His research interests include: psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic approaches
to multilingualism and language acquisition; and cognition. Some of his research has appeared in journals
such as: Behavior Research Methods; Bilingualism: Language and Cognition; Cognition; Cognitive
Psychology; International Journal of Bilingualism; Journal of Neurolinguistics; Neuropsychologia; Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology; Studies in Second Language Acquisition; among others.
Deng et al. 23
Appendix 1. Materials from Experiment 1.
PSR (primary Chinese translation sound repetition
condition)
SSR (secondary Chinese translation sound repetition
condition)
Primes Target words Chinese translations Primes Target words Chinese translations
prediction bathroom 预测—浴室 listen park 听见—停车
tomorrow name 明天—名字 boot degree 靴子—学位
reserve corn 预订—玉米 bone share 骨头—股份
particle danger 微粒—危险 pork major 猪肉—主要
reader poison 读者—毒药 pose capital 姿势—资金
believe cigarette 相信—香烟 colour study 颜色—研究
drama cell 戏剧—细胞 basis odd 基础—奇数
horse aunt 马匹—蚂蚁 soul change 灵魂—零钱
today metal 今天—金属 kite cover 风筝—封面
tree number 树木—数字 selfish letter 自私—字母
property gesture 资产—姿势 limit present 限制—礼物
textbook guest 课本—客人 lid adapt 盖子—改编
static mirror 静态—镜子 eyebrow medium 眉毛—媒介
submission head 投搞—头脑 mat lift 垫子—电梯
meet budget 遇见—预算 observe key 观察—关键
sand murder 沙子—杀手 wisdom treat 智慧—治疗
machine egg 机器—鸡蛋 accept stage 接受—阶段
chicken positive 鸡肉—积极 run desert 跑步—抛弃
thin guard 瘦的—守卫 feather book 羽毛—预订
aim wood 目标—木头 capital watch 首都—手表
luggage form 行李—形式 light square 光线—广场
hungry chance 饥饿—机会 lunch arm 午饭—武装
font nature 字体—自然 embryo company 胚胎—陪伴
forgive staff 原谅—员工 return object 返回—反对
sign waiter 符号—服务员 enjoy miss 享受—想念
sausage village 香肠—乡村 standard table 标准—表格
support spider 支持—蜘蛛 flag wonder 旗帜—奇迹
internet nurse 互联网—护士 marry save 结婚—拯救
secret bee 秘密—蜜蜂 valve fine 阀门—罚款
island missile 岛屿—导弹 prevent tissue 阻止—纸巾
assistant attention 助手—注意 ball fall 球体—秋天
threat smile 威胁—微笑 obtain train 获得—训练
report storm 报告—暴风 bread free 面包—免费
experience surprise 经验—惊讶 insist monitor 坚持—监控
(Continued)
24 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
SU (the semantic unrelated condition) SR (the semantically related condition)
Primes Target words Chinese translations Primes Target words Chinese translations
telegram river 电报—河流 winter cold 冬天—寒冷
stone clothes 石头—衣服 bath shower 洗澡—淋浴
soap street 香皂—大街 shoes foot 鞋子—脚丫
brick management 砖头—管理 hot summer 炎热—夏天
flat flame 公寓—火焰 teacher education 老师—教育
rabbit paper 兔子—论文 exam test 考试—测验
hat knee 帽子—膝盖 dream sleep 做梦—睡觉
pizza story 比萨—故事 math calculate 数学—计算
play gas 玩耍—气体 question answer 问题—答案
brush certificate 刷子—证书 dinner cook 晚餐—做饭
language fox 语言—狐狸 writing essay 写作—文章
game door 游戏—房门 pilot plane 驾驶—飞机
worm independence 虫子—独立 rose love 玫瑰—爱情
review spring 复习—春天 honour reputation 荣誉—名声
ticket balance 票据—平衡 science research 科学—研究
pan wire 炒锅—电线 post mail 邮政—信件
student riddle 学生—谜语 sister brother 姐妹—兄弟
verb youth 动词—年轻 fly wing 飞翔—翅膀
stop weight 停止—重量 physics electricity 物理—电子
beach quick 沙滩—迅速 desk chair 书桌—板凳
pillow joke 枕头—笑话 blue sky 蓝色—天空
chest information 胸膛—信息 grass green 草地—绿色
ear wife 耳朵—妻子 argue fight 争论—打斗
elephant hand 大象—手掌 virus bacteria 病毒—细菌
boat university 小船—大学 candy cake 糖果—蛋糕
programme paint 节目-油画 bottle cup 瓶子—杯子
bag seat 袋子—座位 burning heat 燃烧—发热
value tongue 价值—舌头 newspaper magazine 报纸—杂志
short theory 短的—理论 nose mouth 鼻子—嘴巴
trade weather 贸易—天气 check cash 支票—现金
glass lip 玻璃—嘴唇 victory fail 胜利—失败
bridge army 桥梁—军队 food drink 食物—饮料
building revolution 建筑—革命 coffee tea 咖啡—茶叶
symbol defence 代表—防御 win loss 赢得—输掉
Appendix 1. (Continued)
Deng et al. 25
Appendix 2. Materials from Experiment 2.
SSC (semantically related condition with the same
Chinese translation)
SDC (semantically related condition with different
Chinese translations)
Primes Target words Chinese translations Primes Target words Chinese translations
view watch 观看 death warfare 死亡—战争
choice election 选择 intimate relation 亲密—关系
post mail 邮件 bottle plastic 瓶子—塑料
honour reputation 名誉 feather peacock 羽毛—孔雀
clash conflict 冲突 pencil stationery 铅笔—文具
disturb bother 打扰 clean neat 干净—整洁
forecast predict 预测 familiarity strangeness 熟悉—陌生
stop cease 停止 kitchen tableware 厨房—餐具
pain misery 痛苦 economy profit 经济—利润
require demand 要求 floor roof 地板—屋顶
standard criterion 标准 minister emperor 大臣—皇帝
active positive 积极 physics electricity 物理—电子
semester term 学期 property inherit 财产—继承
commerce trade 贸易 burning flame 燃烧—高温
emotion affection 情感 banana orange 香蕉—橘子
notion concept 概念 pillow sleep 枕头—睡觉
advantage merit 优点 virus bacteria 病毒—细菌
cooperation teamwork 合作 argue fight 争执—打架
health fitness 健康 candy cake 糖果—蛋糕
luck fortune 运气 coffee tea 咖啡—茶水
position location 位置 math calculate 数学—计算
special particular 特别 newspaper magazine 报纸—杂志
gender sexuality 性别 scarf glove 围巾—手套
maybe likely 可能 virtual reality 虚拟—现实
restrict limit 限制 eyebrow forehead 眉毛—额头
salary wage 工资 government officer 政府—官员
thesis essay 论文 grass green 草地—绿色
chill cold 寒冷 science research 科学—研究
hypothesis assumption 假设 support assistance 支持—帮助
influence effect 影响 beginning ending 开始—结束
vacation holiday 假期 blackboard chalk 黑板—粉笔
ability competence 能力 food delicious 食物—美味
danger risk 危险 noodle chopsticks 面条—筷子
passive negative 消极 surgery doctor 外科—医生
fiction novel 小说 victory failure 胜利—失败
garbage rubbish 垃圾 winter snowflake 冬天—雪花
oppose against 反对 music melody 音乐—旋律
prejudice bias 偏见 desk chair 书桌—椅子
elevator lift 电梯 nose mouth 鼻子—嘴巴
opportunity chance 机会 rain cloud 下雨—云朵
advise suggest 建议 photography camera 摄影—相机
bath shower 洗澡 panda bamboo 熊猫—竹子
exam test 考试 sister brother 姐妹—兄弟
pressure stress 压力 sun moon 太阳—月亮
smart clever 聪明 teacher student 教师—学生
(Continued)
26 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
SU (semantically unrelated condition with different
Chinese translations)
Filler items
Primes Target words Chinese translations Primes Target words Chinese translations
appointment scandal 约会—丑闻 paradise illness 天堂—生病
explanation suggestion 解释—建议 preparation method 准备—方法
hunter champagne 猎人—香槟 mask silk 面具—丝绸
brush friendship 刷子—友谊 passport satellite 护照—卫星
error applause 错误—鼓掌 resistance compensation 抵抗—补偿
expression house 表达—房子 mind weight 心情—重量
bee sensitive 蜜蜂—敏感 street paint 街道—油漆
dream wife 梦想—妻子 sympathy poetry 同情—诗歌
benefit repair 好处—修复 technology anxiety 技术—焦虑
destruction harbour 毁坏—港口 patience wire 耐心—电线
existence happiness 存在—幸福 treaty relative 条约—亲戚
fantasy invasion 幻想—入侵 punishment cigarette 惩罚—香烟
building revolution 建筑—革命 rubber try 橡胶—尝试
bullet intention 子弹—意图 schedule conclusion 日程—结论
function assault 功能—攻击 short theory 短的—理论
divorce sing 离婚—唱歌 sports monkey 运动—猴子
virgin determination 处女—决定 lightning sacrifice 闪电—牺牲
army lake 军队—湖水 indication painter 指示—画家
article enthusiasm 文章—热情 invention flat 发明—平面
breeze sofa 微风—沙发 language beast 语言—野兽
brick management 砖头—管理 romance accent 浪漫—口音
reason shell 原因—贝壳 tone afternoon 音调—下午
ear joke 耳朵—玩笑 mercy habit 仁慈—习惯
cause branch 导致—分支 stone clothes 石头—衣服
hat knee 帽子—膝盖 ivory analysis 象牙—分析
horror morning 恐怖—早晨 onion tie 洋葱—领带
humour materials 幽默—材料 organ butterfly 器官—蝴蝶
bubble grave 泡泡—坟墓 parent fireplace 父母—火炉
helmet reward 头盔—奖励 rabbit diary 兔子—日记
basket midnight 篮子—午夜 rainbow content 彩虹—内容
curtain nail 窗帘—指甲 review spring 复习—春天
crystal judgement 水晶—判断 soap wedding 肥皂—婚礼
fever alliance 发烧—同盟 symbol defence 标志—防御
game elephant 游戏—大象 criticism river 批评—河流
glass tail 玻璃—尾巴 weather discipline 天气—纪律
witch muscle 女巫—肌肉 ticket balance 车票—平衡
chest information 胸部—信息 window story 窗户—故事
creation tent 创造—帐篷 play gas 玩耍—气体
gun biology 枪支—生物 value tongue 价值—舌头
love bean 爱情—豆子 vegetable instrument 蔬菜—乐器
beach quick 沙滩—快速 manner autumn 礼仪—秋天
boat university 小船—大学 note tank 笔记—坦克
fame cell 名声—细胞 tooth arrival 牙齿—到达
definition sweat 定义—汗水 sheet courage 床单—勇气
hammer beauty 锤子—美丽 question youth 问题—年轻
Appendix 2. (Continued)
Deng et al. 27
Appendix 3. Materials from Experiment 3.
UR (the semantic-unrelated English translation
repeated condition)
SR (the semantic-related English translation
repeated condition)
Primes Target words English translations Primes Target words English translations
后面 抚养 rear 阳台 走廊 balcony
可以 罐头 can 细菌 病毒 bacteria
细胞 电池 cell 怪物 野兽 beast
提高 饲养 raise 千克 公斤 kilogramme
指甲 钉子 nail 工资 收入 wage
火车 训练 train 旋律 曲调 melody
左边 离开 left 成分 材料 ingredient
计算 重要 count 新闻 消息 news
遇见 满足 meet 国家 民族 nation
礼物 现在 present 竞争 比赛 competition
职业 占据 occupation 注册 登记 registration
大臣 牧师 minister 投票 选举 vote
竞赛 种族 race 交通 运输 transport
科目 主语 subject 挣扎 斗争 struggle
站立 忍受 stand 生产 制造 manufacture
兴趣 利息 interest 联系 接触 contact
压力 强调 stress 关心 照顾 care
桌子 表格 table 真相 事实 truth
沙漠 抛弃 desert 手术 操作 operation
仍然 静止 still 防御 保卫 defence
首都 资金 capital 细节 具体 detail
举起 电梯 lift 商业 生意 business
外表 出现 appearance 金融 财政 finance
自由 免费 free 力量 强度 strength
财产 属性 property 牺牲 奉献 sacrifice
小屋 船舱 cabin 数字 号码 number
思念 错过 miss 功能 作用 function
舞台 阶段 stage 假设 猜想 hypothesis
拯救 节约 save 楼梯 台阶 stairs
剥削 开发 exploit 练习 锻炼 exercise
(Continued)
28 International Journal of Bilingualism 00(0)
UN (the semantic-unrelated English translation
non-repeated condition)
SN (the semantic-related English translation
non-repeated condition)
Primes Target words English translations Primes Target words English translations
心情 网络 mood – network 崇拜 尊敬 worship – respect
增加 事业 addition – career 拒绝 接受 refuse – accept
管理 补偿 management – compensation 勇气 挑战 courage – challenge
蝴蝶 命运 butterfly – destiny 开始 结束 start – end
性别 指示 gender – indication 危险 安全 danger – safety
光荣 手掌 glory – palm 结果 原因 consequence – cause
桥梁 军队 bridge – army 目标 动机 goal – motivation
冠军 决定 champion – decision 技术 工具 technique – tool
垃圾 焦虑 garbage – anxiety 安静 吵闹 silence – noisy
油画 态度 paint – attitude 冒险 危机 adventure – crisis
炸弹 环境 bomb – circumstance 信息 知识 information – knowledge
思想 生物 thought – biology 科学 调查 science – research
卡片 对比 card – contrast 速度 缓慢 speed – slow
基因 进口 gene – import 丰收 农民 harvest – farmer
妻子 城市 wife – city 胜利 失败 victory – fail
子弹 喜剧 bullet – comedy 气候 湿润 climate – moist
对话 革命 dialogue – revolution 地狱 天堂 hell – heaven
地址 基础 address – base 天才 智力 genius – intelligence
收集 防守 collection – defence 做梦 睡觉 dream – sleep
边缘 火焰 edge – flame 生病 医院 illness – hospital
世界 比较 world – comparison 写作 文学 writing – literature
祖先 控制 ancestor – control 口音 方言 accent – dialect
成长 感染 growth – infection 化学 物理 chemistry – physics
任务 座位 task – seat 炎热 夏天 hot – summer
经济 旗帜 economy – flag 早晨 夜晚 morning – night
广告 独立 advertisement – independence 视力 眼睛 sight – eye
问候 工业 greeting – industry 身体 健康 body – health
游戏 永远 game – forever 金钱 财富 money – wealth
地方 水晶 place – crystal 老师 教育 teacher – education
想象 嘴唇 imagination – lip 玫瑰 爱情 rose – love
Appendix 3. (Continued)
