The Processing of English-Turkish (False) Cognates: Evidence from a Backward Lexical Translation Task

Abstract

Cognate facilitation and false cognate inhibition effects have been tested in various language pairs with different experimental tasks and participant profiles so far. However, studies focusing on the recognition or production of (false) cognates are nearly absent for Turkish-English despite the prevalence of these words. Thus, using a backward lexical translation task (from L2 to L1), this study aimed to investigate whether cognate facilitation and false cognate inhibition effects could be observed in Turkish-English by testing 50 adult Turkish L2 speakers of English. The materials were made up of cognates, false cognates, and controls. The effect of L2 proficiency was also manipulated by dividing the participants into two proficiency groups (high vs. low) based on OPT scores. Also, the role of morphology was introduced by using mismatch items (polymorphemic in L2 but monomorphemic in L1). The findings showed a robust cognate facilitation and false cognate inhibition but no significant effect of L2 proficiency. The role of morphology was not conclusive and came with its limitations. These results provided supporting evidence for the language non-selective view and pointed towards the presence of these effects irrespective of language, task or participant profile. Also, a compelling need for measuring proficiency using multiple measures emerged.

Keywords

• (false) cognate effect
• Turkish
• English
• morphology
• backward lexical translation task

Türkçe-İngilizce (Yalancı) Eşdeğer Sözcüklerin İşlemlenmesi: Sözcüksel Tersine Çeviri Görevi Bulguları

Abstract

Hızlandırıcı eşdeğer ve yavaşlatıcı yalancı eşdeğer etkileri şimdiye dek çeşitli dil ikililerinde farklı deneysel görevler ve katılımcı grupları kullanılarak sınanmıştır. Ancak (yalancı) eşdeğer sözcüklerin Türkçe-İngilizce dil ikilisi arasındaki yaygınlığına rağmen, bu sözcüklerin tanınması ve üretimine odaklanan çalışmalar bu ikili arasında yok denecek kadar azdır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada, hızlandırıcı eşdeğer ve yavaşlatıcı yalancı eşdeğer etkilerinin var olup olmadığı sözcüksel tersine çeviri (D2’den D1’e) görevi kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Çalışmaya 50 yetişkin D1 Türkçe D2 İngilizce konuşuru katılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında eşdeğer, yalancı eşdeğer ve kontrol türünde sözcükler sınanmıştır. Ayrıca, İngilizce Yeterlik Testi sonuçlarına göre katılımcılar iki gruba ayrılmış (yüksek ve düşük) ve böylece D2 yeterliği bağımsız değişken olarak çalışmaya eklenmiştir. Dahası, uyumsuz durum (D2’de çok biçimbirimli D1’de tek biçimbirimli) dahil edilerek olası biçimbilimsel etkiler sınanmıştır. Sonuçlar hızlandırıcı eşdeğer ve yavaşlatıcı yalancı eşdeğer etkileri ortaya koymuş ancak D2 yeterliğinin belirgin bir etkisine rastlanılmamıştır. Deneysel desen kaynaklı bazı kısıtlar sebebiyle biçimbilimin etkisi hakkında kesin iddialar ortaya koymak mümkün olamamıştır. Tüm bu bulgular seçici ikidilli (language non-selective) görüşünü ve bu etkilerin sınanan diller, kullanılan görev ve katılımcı profilinden bağımsız ortaya çıktığını destekler niteliktedir. Son olarak, bu çalışma dil yeterliğini ölçmede birden çok ölçütten faydalanılması gerekliliğini ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

• (yalancı) eşdeğer etkisi
• Türkçe
• İngilizce
• biçimbilim
• sözcüksel tersine çeviri görevi

References

1. Aksan, Yeşim, et al. Türkçe Ulusal Dil Derlemi Projesi Biçimbirim Çalışmalarında Belirsizliklerin Sınıflandırılması ve Dağılımı. 2012, pp. 219–26.
2. Bosma, Evelyn, et al. “A Longitudinal Study on the Gradual Cognate Facilitation Effect in Bilingual Children’s Frisian Receptive Vocabulary.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 22, no. 4, May 2019, pp. 371–85. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1254152.
3. Brenders, Pascal, et al. “Word Recognition in Child Second Language Learners: Evidence from Cognates and False Friends.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 109, no. 4, Aug. 2011, pp. 383–96. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.012.
4. Bultena, Sybrine, et al. “Cognate Effects in Sentence Context Depend on Word Class, L2 Proficiency, and Task.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 67, no. 6, SAGE Publications, June 2014, pp. 1214–41. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.853090.
5. de Bruin, Angela, et al. “The BEST Dataset of Language Proficiency.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, Apr. 2017. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00522.
6. de Groot, Annette M. B., et al. “The Processing of Interlexical Homographs in Translation Recognition and Lexical Decision: Support for Non-Selective Access to Bilingual Memory.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, vol. 53, no. 2, SAGE Publications, May 2000, pp. 397–428. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1080/713755891.
7. Dijkstra, Ton, Henk Van Jaarsveld, et al. “Interlingual Homograph Recognition: Effects of Task Demands and Language Intermixing.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, vol. 1, no. 1, Apr. 1998, pp. 51–66. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1017/S1366728998000121.
8. Dijkstra, Ton, Jonathan Grainger, et al. “Recognition of Cognates and Interlingual Homographs: The Neglected Role of Phonology.” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 41, no. 4, Nov. 1999, pp. 496–518. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2654.

9. Durlik, Joanna, et al. “Interference and Inhibition in Bilingual Language Comprehension: Evidence from Polish-English Interlingual Homographs.” PLOS ONE, vol. 11, no. 3, Public Library of Science, Mar. 2016, p. e0151430. PLoS Journals, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151430.
10. Hoshino, Noriko, and Judith F. Kroll. “Cognate Effects in Picture Naming: Does Cross- Language Activation Survive a Change of Script?” Cognition, vol. 106, no. 1, Jan. 2008, pp. 501–11. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.001.
11. Janke, Vikki, and Marina Kolokonte. “False Cognates: The Effect of Mismatch in Morphological Complexity on a Backward Lexical Translation Task.” Second Language Research, vol. 31, no. 2, SAGE Publications Ltd, Apr. 2015, pp. 137–56. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/0267658314545836.
12. Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma. “Introducing LexTALE: A Quick and Valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 44, no. 2, June 2012, pp. 325–43. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.3758/s13428-011- 0146-0.
13. Lindgren, Josefin, and Ute Bohnacker. “Vocabulary Development in Closely-Related Languages: Age, Word Type and Cognate Facilitation Effects in Bilingual Swedish- German Preschool Children.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, vol. 10, no. 5, John Benjamins, Oct. 2020, pp. 587–622. www.jbe-platform.com, doi:10.1075/lab.18041.lin.
14. Marian, Viorica, et al. “The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAPQ): Assessing Language Profiles in Bilinguals and Multilinguals.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 50, no. 4, Aug. 2007, pp. 940–67. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067).
15. Midgley, Katherine J., et al. “Effects of Cognate Status on Word Comprehension in Second Language Learners: An ERP Investigation.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 23, no. 7, July 2011, pp. 1634–47. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21463.
16. Otwinowska, Agnieszka, and Jakub M. Szewczyk. “The More Similar the Better? Factors in Learning Cognates, False Cognates and Non-Cognate Words.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 22, no. 8, Nov. 2019, pp. 974– 91. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1325834.
17. Rosselli, Mónica, et al. “Cognate Facilitation Effect in Balanced and Non-Balanced Spanish–English Bilinguals Using the Boston Naming Test.” International Journal of Bilingualism, vol. 18, no. 6, SAGE Publications Ltd, Dec. 2014, pp. 649–62. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1367006912466313.
18. Schröter, Pauline, and Sascha Schroeder. “Orthographic Processing in Balanced Bilingual Children: Cross-Language Evidence from Cognates and False Friends.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 141, Jan. 2016, pp. 239–46. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.005.
19. Solak, Hilal Gulseker, and Abdulkadir Cakir. “Cognate Based Language Teaching and Material Development.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 46, Jan. 2012, pp. 431–34. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.136.
20. Sur, Shravani, and V. K. Sinha. “Event-Related Potential: An Overview.” Industrial Psychiatry Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, Jan. 2009, pp. 70–73. www.industrialpsychiatry.org, doi:10.4103/0972-6748.57865.
21. Tomoschuk, Brendan, et al. “When a Seven Is Not a Seven: Self-Ratings of Bilingual Language Proficiency Differ between and within Language Populations.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, vol. 22, no. 3, May 2019, pp. 516–36. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1017/S1366728918000421.
22. Uzun, Levent, and Umut Salihoglu. “English-Turkish Cognates and False Cognates: Compiling a Corpus and Testing How They Are Translated by Computer Programs.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, vol. 45, no. 4, Versita, Dec. 2009, pp. 569–93. www.degruyter.com, doi:10.2478/v10010-009-0031-5.
23. van Heuven, Walter J. B., et al. “Subtlex-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 67, no. 6, SAGE Publications, June 2014, pp. 1176–90. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.850521.
24. Viviani, Eva, and Davide Crepaldi. Masked Morphological Priming Tracks the Development of a Fully Mature Lexical System in L2. preprint, Open Science Framework, 3 June 2019. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.31219/osf.io/xdsng.
25. Yetkı̇n, Nihal. “Partial false friends in English - Turkish translations: diplomatic texts.” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 28, no. 1, 1, June 2011, pp. 207–222.