Cross-Language Priming from Ignored Words: Evidence for a CommonRepresentational System in Bilinguals

ELAINE FOX

University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom

Two experiments were conducted to examine cross-language priming from ignored stimuli inbilinguals. In Experiment 1, bilinguals categorized a focally attended number while ignoring flankingwords during aprime trial and then made lexical decisions toprobeletter strings. When probe wordswere semantic associates of previously ignored flanker words, cross-language negative primingoccurred only when the ignored flankers were in the subject’s first language (L1), and the probe targetwas in the second language (L2). Using translation equivalents rather than semantic associates, thesecond experiment found that cross-language negative priming occurred in both the L1-L2 and theL2-L1 conditions. However, there was still an asymmetry with more negative priming occurring inthe L1-L2 condition. These results suggest that bilinguals access common conceptual representationsacross languages and support a revised hierarchical model of bilingual memory organization (Kroll& Stewart, 1994). © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

The nature of bilingual lexical organization isan enduring question in bilingual research (e.g.,Snodgrass, 1984). Two major theoretical view-points have been dominant. First, thelanguage-specific hypothesisproposes that the lexicalknowledge of the bilingual may be representedin two language-specific memory systems, onefor each of the bilingual’s languages. Second,the language-independent hypothesisproposesthat bilinguals have a common, language-independent, conceptual representation forwords in their two languages. The debate onwhether bilingual lexical organization is struc-tured in language-specific memory systems orin a common conceptual store has continued, inpart, because of conflicting empirical evidence.It has recently been noted, however, that a criti-cal factor in investigating these issues is thenature of the tasks used to assess language

specificity or language independence in bilin-guals (e.g., Durgunoglu & Roediger, 1987;Smith, 1991). In general, tasks that are primar-ily data driven (e.g., word completion) supportthe language-specific notion, whereas tasks thatare conceptually driven (e.g., free recall) sup-port the common conceptual representation(i.e., language-independent) notion.Given this, it has been argued that much of

the early evidence on bilingual memory organi-zation can be accounted for by a hierarchicalmodel which assumes that lexical representa-tions are independent across languages but thatsemantic representations are shared (e.g., Kroll,1993; Kroll & Sholl, 1992; Potter, So, von Eck-hardt, & Feldman, 1984; Smith, 1991; Snod-grass, 1984). Even if it is the case that words indifferent languages are represented at the sur-face level by language-specific representations,but at the conceptual level by common amodalrepresentations, there are still a number of im-portant questions to be addressed concerningthe lexical/semantic connections between a bi-lingual’s two languages. These “connections”are the focus of the current study.A widely used paradigm to test the language-

specific and the language-independent modelsof bilingual lexical organization is the primedlexical decision task (LDT) (Meyer & Schvan-eveldt, 1971). In monolingual studies of seman-tic priming, a word is judged to be a real word

The research reported here was conducted while the au-thor was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Laboratory ofExperimental Psychology, University of Sussex, U.K. andwas supported by an IGC grant from Victoria University ofWellington, New Zealand. I would like to thank Alan Parkinand Alan Garnham for the generous use of their laboratoryat the University of Sussex, and for their help with computerprogramming. The insightful comments of Annette deGroot, Judith Kroll, and Joseph Tzelgov greatly facilitatedrevision of this article. Correspondence should be addressedto Elaine Fox, Department of Psychology, University ofEssex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United King-dom. E-mail: efox@essex.ac.uk.

JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE 35, 353–370 (1996)ARTICLE NO. 0020

3530749-596X/96 $18.00Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

faster when it is preceded by a semanticallyrelated prime word (e.g., DOG-CAT) than by anunrelated prime word (e.g., HOUSE-CAT) (seeNeely, 1991, for review). This semantic-priming effect is often attributed to spreadingactivation between memory nodes in an inte-grated memory system (Anderson, 1983; Col-lins & Loftus, 1975). In the bilingual version ofthe LDT, the prime word is presented in onelanguage and the probe target in another (e.g.,CHIEN-CAT). If a bilingual’s two languagesare stored in separate language-specific lexi-cons thenno cross-language semantic primingwould be expected. However, if semantic prim-ing is found across languages, then one can con-clude that both languages share a common rep-resentational system. Cross-language semanticpriming is often assumed to be the result ofactivation of a word in one language “spread-ing” to semantically related nodes in the otherlanguage. The present paper will briefly reviewthe evidence for language-independent concep-tual representations in bilinguals, focusing pri-marily on priming paradigms. A number ofmethodological problems in interpreting thesestudies are considered, and finally, two experi-ments are reported which provide new evidenceon the connections between words in the bilin-gual lexicon.

EVIDENCE FOR

LANGUAGE-INDEPENDENTREPRESENTATIONS

Under conditions that require rapid access tomeaning to obtain priming, cross-languagepriming should occur only if both languagesaccess a common conceptual memory represen-tation (Kroll, 1993). Studies using tasks whichemphasizesemanticprocessing frequently sug-gest that bilinguals can indeed access the rep-resentations of their two languages simulta-neously. To illustrate, Beauvillain and Grainger(1987) embedded interlexical homographs (i.e.,words spelled identically but with differentmeanings in each language) in a list of Frenchnonhomograph words in a priming paradigm.English–French bilinguals read French contextwords prior to performing a lexical decision onEnglish target words related or unrelated to theEnglish reading of the homographs. Language-

specific access would be indicated if COIN(which means corner in French) presented in alist of French words did not facilitate MONEY.It was found that when the prime to targetstimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was 150 ms,subjects could not selectively access one lexicalsystem, since facilitation was observed for tar-get words related to the inappropriate reading ofthe homograph context words. Moreover, it wasalso found that lexical access of homographswas ordered according to word frequency (re-gardless of language) rather than languagemode (Beauvillain & Grainger, 1987: Experi-ment 2). This finding is difficult to reconcilewith the language-specific hypothesis. It shouldbe noted, however, that these interlexical hom-ograph studies do not necessarily constitute evi-dence for language-independent representa-tions, since it may be possible to access twoseparate language-specific memory stores si-multaneously.More compelling evidence comes from stud-

ies that show that (nonhomographic) prime con-text words generally do facilitate responding tosubsequent semantically related target words,even when the primes and targets are in differ-ent languages (e.g., Chen & Ng, 1989; Kirsner,Smith, Lockhart, King, & Jain, 1984;Schwanenflugel & Rey, 1986; Tzelgov &Henik, 1989). As pointed out by de Groot andNas (1991)“ . . a between-language semantic-priming effect, that is, a priming effect of aword presented in the one language on a seman-tically related word presented in the second lan-guage, suggests that the two languages underconsideration are integrated at the conceptuallevel of representation” (p. 91).Further evidence for a common representa-

tional system in bilinguals is derived from ex-periments demonstrating cross-language Stroopinterference effects (Chen & Ho, 1986; Dyer,1971; Preston & Lambert, 1969; Tzelgov,Henik, & Leiser, 1990). The traditional Stroopeffect (Stroop, 1935) is the demonstration thatthe response “red” to the word BLUE printedin red is generally slower than the same re-sponse to the word RED printed in red (seeMacLeod, 1991, for review). In other words, ifthe to-be-ignored aspect of the stimulus (e.g.,

FOX354

word meaning) is incongruent with the appro-priate response, reading times (RTs) are de-layed. Cross-language Stroop interference is thedemonstration that a color word in a languagewhich is different from the response languagestill produces interference. Such findings are of-ten assumed to indicate that bilinguals mustshare a common conceptual representation forwords in different languages, since a simulta-neously presented word in one language impairsthe color-naming response in the other lan-guage.

CAN CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING BEATTRIBUTED TO SPREADINGACTIVATION?

There are problems in concluding that cross-language Stroop effects reflect some form of“spreading activation” between a bilingual’stwo languages. In a nutshell, the to-be-ignoredaspect of a Stroop stimulus is probably not un-attended, since the relevant and irrelevant di-mensions are fully integrated. There is ampleevidence that with such stimuli it is impossibleto selectively attend to only one dimension(Treisman, 1969). The problem here is that theto-be-ignored aspect of the stimulus (i.e., wordmeaning) may well receive attentional process-ing and may even be translated. Therefore, inorder to convincingly demonstrate automaticactivation of a bilingual’s two languages, aparadigm is required where the to-be-ignoredinformation is unattended. In these circum-stances, a significant influence of the unat-tended semantic context (in one language) ontarget processing (in the other language) wouldseriously embarrass the language-specific hy-pothesis.Just as cross-language Stroop effects may not

provide convincing evidence for a commonconceptual representational system in bilin-guals, cross-language semantic priming effectsare also open to differing interpretations. At is-sue is what mechanism accounts for cross-language semantic priming. The most interest-ing hypothesis is that the priming effect is dueto automatic spreading activation (Anderson,1983; Collins & Loftus, 1975)betweenthe twolanguages. Indeed, this assumption is critical tothe conclusion that cross-language priming re-

flects the organization of representations in bi-lingual memory. However, monolingual re-search has shown that at least two other pro-cesses can also produce semantic primingeffects (see Balota & Chumbley, 1984; deGroot, 1984; Neely, 1991). First, after bothwords in a related pair have been identified, butbefore a response is emitted, the subject mayattempt to integrate the meanings of the twowords. A positive outcome of thispostlexicalintegration mechanismbiases the subject to-wards the correct word response, thus account-ing for faster RTs in related relative to unrelatedword-pairs. Second, there may be anallocationof attentionto the memory area containing therepresentation of the target word prior to itsoccurrence. De Groot and Nas (1991) point outthat both of these processes may also affect theprocessing of target words preceded by visible,semantically related primes in cross-languageconditions. Of critical importance for bilingualstudies“ . . . attention may also be directed totranslationsof words semantically related to theprime, and meaning integration may operate . . .independent of the language of the words thatcarry the meaning” (de Groot & Nas, 1991, p.93). Therefore, in order to attribute cross-language semantic priming effects to automaticspreading activation, it is necessary to disablestrategic processes such as meaning integrationand attentional priming.A number of studies have attempted to dis-

able these strategic processes. For example, deGroot and Nas (1991) manipulated forwardmasking of the prime word in a cross-languagepriming task. When the primes were maskedafter just 60 ms, a cross-language (Dutch to En-glish) associative priming effect was observedwith fluent Dutch–English bilinguals, but onlyfor cognatetranslations. No associative primingwas found fornoncognateswhen the primestimuli were masked (de Groot & Nas, 1991,Experiments 3 and 4). On the basis of theseresults, the authors proposed a model of bilin-gual language representation, which assumesthat cognate translations share a representationat the conceptual level, but that noncognatetranslations are “represented in separate nodesat the conceptual representational level” (p.

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 355

117). A very similar pattern of results has beenreported by Sanchez-Casas, Davies, and Garcia-Albea (1992). Thus, cross-language primingseems to be restricted to cognates, and noncog-nate translations appear to be represented inseparate nodes which only have connections toassociatively related wordsin the same lan-guage.According to de Groot and Nas’s (1991)model, no associative priming should occuracross languages when the primes are maskedand the translations are noncognates (but see deGroot, 1992b, for modification of this view).Taken together, the studies of masked cross-

language priming (de Groot & Nas, 1991;Sanchez-Casas et al., 1992) indicate that cross-language priming of noncognates may be due tostrategic processes such as postlexical meaningintegration. A similar conclusion was reachedby Keatley and de Gelder (1992) on the basis oftheir finding that cross-language (but notwithin-language) priming disappeared whensubjects were required to respond at a fixed fastrate. They argued that a postlexical accessmeaning integration process is a normal part ofthe reading process, but that this mechanism canbe detached by conscious strategy if subjectsfind it interferes with response speed.Apart from pattern masking, another method

of disabling the meaning-integration process inthe priming paradigm is to manipulate the pro-portion of related and unrelated word-pairs in anexperiment (de Groot, 1984). The idea is that ahigh proportion of related word-pairs encour-ages subjects to use strategic processes. Thus,this mechanism should be disabled if a very lowproportion of related word-pairs are used. It hasindeed been found that with fluent bilinguals,cross-language priming disappears when theproportion of related pairs was small (Grainger& Beauvillain, 1988). However, several otherstudies that have attempted to minimize strate-gic factors by reducing the prime-target SOAand by reducing the proportion of related trialshave found that cross-language priming doesoccur, but only when the primes are presentedin the subject’s first language (L1), and the tar-get words are presented in the subject’s secondlanguage (L2) (see Keatley, Spinks, & deGelder, 1994, for review).

ASYMMETRICAL CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING

Keatley et al., (1994, Experiment 1) foundthat even though Chinese–English bilingualscategorized Chinese and English words equallyfast in the LDT, cross-language priming wasonly apparent in the L1-L2 (i.e., Chinese–English) condition and not in the L2-L1 condi-tion. In a second experiment, Keatley et al.,(1994, Experiment 2) presented a cross-language priming task to highly fluent Dutch–French bilinguals. The prime-target SOA wasshort (200 ms), and a low proportion of allprime-target pairs were semantically related(.12). They found significant semantic facilita-tion in the two within-language conditions (L1-L1, 30 ms; L2-L2, 34 ms). Of more interest,however, was a clear asymmetry in cross-language priming, such that significant facilita-tion only occurred from a prime in the subject’sfirst language (L1-L2, 42 ms), but not from aprime in the subject’s second language (L2-L1,11 ms). Keatley et al., (1994) suggest that asym-metric cross-language priming can be ac-counted for by a language-specific model of bi-lingual memory. They attribute the asymmetryin cross-language priming tostrongerconnec-tions from L1 to L2, than from L2 to L1. Thisstronger L1-L2 connection may then be ex-ploited by the meaning integration process.Asymmetric cross-language priming can also

be accounted for by a revised hierarchicalmodel of bilingual language representation asoutlined by Kroll and her colleagues (Kroll,1993; Kroll & Sholl, 1992; Kroll & Stewart,1990, 1994). This model proposes that there arelexical level links between words in a bilin-gual’s two languages, and that each of thesewords also has independent access to a commonconceptual representation. A key feature of thismodel is the proposal that the lexical level con-nections from L2 to L1 are stronger than arethose from L1 to L2. It is assumed that L2words will initially be mapped to L1 to gainaccess to concepts, but that processing from L1to L2 is more likely to require conceptual me-diation. Thus, a clear prediction of this model isthat presentation of a word in L1 is more likelyto activate its corresponding conceptual repre-

FOX356

sentation in L2 than its lexical representation inL2. In contrast, presentation of an L2 word ismore likely to activate the corresponding L1word than a concept. Evidence which supportsthis model includes: (i) faster translation fromL2 to L1 than from L1 to L2, and (ii) the factthat the L1 to L2 translation process is ofteninfluenced by conceptual variables, whereastranslating from L2 to L1 is not (Kroll, 1993;Kroll & Sholl, 1992; but see de Groot, Dannen-burg, & Vanhell, 1994, for contrasting results).Asymmetric cross-language priming effects

(Keatley et al., 1994; see also Kroll et al., 1992),provides further evidence for a revised hierar-chical model which assumes a common repre-sentational system in bilinguals. The idea is thatthe asymmetry is due to differentkindsof con-nections between languages: when the languageorder is L1-L2, the connection is assumed to beconceptual. When the language order is L2-L1,the connection is assumed to be lexical. In con-trast, the model proposed by Keatley et al.(1994) attributes the asymmetrical priming tostrongerconnections from L1 to L2 rather thanto different kinds of connections. These con-trasting interpretations of asymmetrical cross-language priming effects will be considered fur-ther in the General Discussion.

PRIMING FROM UNATTENDED STIMULI

To summarize, recent research has shownthat cross-language semantic priming is not asrobust as was once assumed. In particular, whenmeaning integration processes are disabled,cross-language priming appears to be restrictedto cases where the prime is presented in thesubject’s first language and the target in thesubject’s second language (Keatley et al., 1994;Kroll et al., 1992). Furthermore, cross-languagepriming may be further restricted to cognatetranslations and not to noncognate translations(de Groot & Nas, 1991; Sanchez-Casas et al.,1992).A key problem in interpreting all of the fore-

going studies, is that priming was measuredfrom anattendeditem, so that there was alwaysopportunity for attentional processing of theprime. For example, in the cross-languageStroop task (e.g., Chen & Ho, 1986), the word

to-be-ignored is presented in focal attention.Likewise, in the cross-language semantic prim-ing paradigm (e.g., Keatley et al., 1994) theprime word is also presented at focal attention.While subjects may not be consciously aware ofthe prime under masking conditions (e.g., deGroot & Nas, 1991), the prime is still presentedat focal attention where retinal acuity is at itsbest. Therefore, in all of these situations thepossibility that subjects may engage in someeffortful attentional processing of the prime(e.g., translation) cannot be totally ruled out. Toobviate this problem, the current approach is topresent words outside focal attention, which it isargued provides a good method of disablingpredictive strategies and postlexical meaningintegration processes, since priming is mea-sured from an item that isneverattended.The paradigm used is theNegative Priming

task (e.g., Neill, 1977; Tipper, 1985), whichmeasures the influence of unattended stimuli onattentional processing. Negative priming is thedemonstration that responses to stimuli thathave been recently ignored areslower than re-sponses to control stimuli (see Fox, 1995; May,Kane, & Hasher, 1995, for comprehensive re-views). To illustrate, Yee (1991) required sub-jects to categorize a geometrical figure whileignoring distracting words printed above andbelow the geometrical figure during aprimedis-play. Then, on a subsequentprobedisplay, sub-jects made a lexical decision to a letter string.The critical trials were those in which the wordin the LDT was semantically related to the pre-viously ignored distracting words. On these tri-als, RTs were reliably slower than RTs to se-mantically unrelated words.The usual interpretation of the negative prim-

ing effect is that it is a reflection of the selectiveinhibition of distracting information during se-lection of a target (e.g., Tipper, 1985; but seeFox, 1995, for discussion of alternative expla-nations of negative priming). In the current con-text, the idea is that if words in the bilinguallexicon share a common conceptual representa-tion, then inhibition of ignored words in onelanguage should impair subsequent respondingto related words in the other language. In con-trast, if words in different languages are stored

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 357

in separate language-specific memory systems,then no cross-language negative priming wouldbe expected. It is again important to note thatbecause priming is measured from anignoreditem, the operation of meaning integration andstrategic processes are unlikely.

THE PRESENTSTUDY

The present research aims to investigatewhetherunattendedwords presented in one lan-guage can influence processing ofattendedwords in a bilingual’s other language. This issueis investigated by means of the negative primingparadigm, which examines the priming effect ofan ignored flanker on processing of a subse-quent target. Negative priming is examined withboth semantic associates (Experiment 1) andtranslation equivalents (Experiment 2). Themagnitude of priming is also examined whenthe ignored stimuli are presented in the bilingualsubject’s first language (L1), and when they arein the subject’s second language (L2), in orderto investigate the predictions from Kroll’s re-vised hierarchical model of bilingual memory(Kroll, 1993; Kroll & Stewart, 1990, 1994). Be-cause meaning integration processes are dis-abled, this model predicts that cross-languagenegative priming effects should be substantiallygreater from L1 to L2, than from L2 to L1.

EXPERIMENT 1

An advantage of the negative priming para-digm is that subjects are engaged in respondingto a target in the “priming” display while ignor-ing flankers that are presented in parafoveal vi-sion (i.e., outside the putative “spotlight” of at-tention). Thus, any priming effects from unat-tended words can be more clearly attributed toautomatic spreading activation (or inhibition).Importantly, subjects were also unaware that theexperiment included cross-language conditions.Reliable within-language as well as cross-language priming under these conditions wouldsupport the language-independent hypothesis.In contrast, reliable within-language priming incombination with no cross-language primingwould be consistent with the language-specifichypothesis.Experiment 1 also provides a test of recent

predictions that cross-language priming shouldoccur only when the primes are presented in thesubject’s first language and the targets are pre-sented in the second language (Kroll, 1993;Kroll & Stewart, 1990, 1994). Such asymme-tries have been found in positive semantic prim-ing experiments (Keatley et al., 1994; Kroll etal., 1992). The present experiment is the firsttest of this prediction in the negative primingparadigm which more effectively controls forpostlexical meaning integration and strategicprocesses.

Method

Subjects.Nineteen bilingual subjects were re-cruited from the University of Sussex campuscommunity; 11 of these were native Englishspeakers, and 8 were native French speakers.Each subject completed a brief questionnairewhich asked them about their language history,and asked them to rate their degree of fluency inEnglish and French on a 7-point scale (14 notat all fluent, 74 fluent). The average rating offluency in the subjects’ second language was6.05, and on average, subjects began speakingtheir second language at 8.55 years.Stimuli and apparatus.One hundred-twenty

prime-target word pairs were selected from pre-vious research (McKoon & Ratcliff, 1979; Post-man & Keppel, 1970). Half of these pairs weresemantically associated using word associationnorms, and half were unassociated. A further120 prime words were selected which werematched with the other prime words on the di-mensions of word length and word frequency.Fifteen semantically associated and 15 unasso-ciated word-pairs were randomly assigned toeach of the four experimental conditions (seebelow). Nonword targets were generated bychanging the vowels in English and Frenchwords that matched word targets in numbers ofletters, syllables, and word frequency. All non-words were pronounceable. A list of the asso-ciated word-pairs used is presented in AppendixA. Mean associative strengths (and standard de-viations) for the associated word-pairs are 42.1(14.6), 41.5 (22.5), 45.8 (13.9), and 44.5 (14.1)for the English–English, French–English,French–French, and English–French conditions,

FOX358

respectively. The mean word frequencies (andstandard deviations) for these four language-mix conditions were also similar: 168.5 (235.4),157.6 (244.1), 176.8 (312.5), and 166.2 (253.6)per million, respectively.The experiment was controlled by a custom

built 6809 microprocessor, running Tscop soft-ware (Norris, 1984). The subjects’ task was toclassify a number in the prime display as beingeven (either 4 or 6) or odd (either 5 or 7). In thefollowing display they were required to deter-mine whether a letter string was a word or anonword. Subjects used a two-key responseboard to register their responses for both tasks.Response mappings for the prime classificationtask were counterbalanced across subjects suchthat half used one response mapping and theother half used the reverse mapping. In the lexi-cal decision task the right key was used forword responses and the left key for nonwordresponses.Baseline RTs.In order to establish the effect

of a prime stimulus on processing a subsequenttarget word, it is important to establish thatbaseline RTs to the target words are equivalent.To ensure that this was the case, a pilot experi-ment was conducted using thetarget wordswhich had been selected for the priming experi-ment and the corresponding nonwords. Non-words were English-like in the English list andFrench-like in the French list. Three nativeFrench speakers provided baseline RT data forthe French target words, and three native En-glish speakers provided baseline RTs for theEnglish target words. The overall baseline me-dian RTs for word targets which were subse-quently used in therelatedandunrelatedcon-ditions in the priming experiment were 641 and645 for the English words, and 654 and 650 forthe French words. These RTs were not differentfrom each other, and fewer than 1% errors weremade. Thus, any slowing (or speeding) of re-sponse to these target words in the priming ex-periment can be attributed to the influence ofthe prime flankers.Design and procedure.The present experi-

ment was a modification of a paradigm devel-oped by Yee (1991). Every trial consisted of aprime and a probe display. Subjects were re-

quired to classify a target as being either aneven or an odd number in theprime display.The prime target was presented at fixation withthe flanking word presented at both 2.4 deg ofvisual angle above and 2.4 deg of visual anglebelow the target. Immediately after this display,a (probe) letter string was presented at fixationto which subjects had to make alexical deci-sion. In one block, the lexical decision task in-volved L1 words/nonwords, and in a separateblock the letter strings were L2 words/non-words. Half of the lexical decision words ineach block were semantically associated withthe previously ignored flankers, and half wereunassociated. Half of these were in the samelanguage as the targets (within-language), andhalf were in the other language (cross-language).The experiment had a fully within-subjects

design. The within-subjects factors were (i) Tar-get Language (L1, L2) on the probe display, (ii)Flanker Language on the prime display (L1,L2), and (iii) the semantic association betweenflanker words in the prime display and a sub-sequent target word in the probe display (Re-lated, Unrelated). Half of the target numbers inthe prime display were odd (5 or 7) and halfwere even (4 or 6). Likewise, half of the lexicaldecision targets were words and half were non-words. In the 120 trials where the lexical deci-sion target was a word, the target was semanti-cally associated to the flankers in the prime dis-play in half of the trials. In the other half of thetrials there was no association between the tar-get and the prime words. The Target Languagein the lexical decision task was blocked; half ofthe subjects received the two conditions with L1targets first (L1 Flankers, L1 Targets, L1-L1;L2 Flankers, L1 Targets, L2-L1) followed bythe two conditions with L2 targets in the lexicaldecision task (L2 Flankers, L2 Targets, L2-L2;L1 Flankers, L2 Targets, L1-L2). The other halfof the subjects received the reverse order.Stimuli were presented in a pre-determined

randomized order to all subjects, with the con-straint that there were never more than two con-secutive associated prime-target trials. The 120trials in the L1 Target block were preceded by10 practice trials consisting of equal numbers of

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 359

odd and even prime target numbers, and equalnumbers of word and nonword probe targets.None of the prime flankers was related to thesubsequent lexical decision targets in the prac-tice trials. Of the 60 trials containing a wordtarget in the lexical decision task, 30 followedL1 Flankers and 30 followed L2 Flankers—15of each of these flankers were semantically as-sociated to the probe word. The 120 trials in theL2 Target block had a similar breakdown oftrial types and the block was preceded by 10practice trials. No word was repeated (in eitherlanguage) as either a Flanker or as a Targetthroughout the 20 practice of 240 experimentaltrials. There was, however, one exception to thisdue to an error. As shown in the AppendixBREAD-BUTTER, as well as the Frenchequivalent PAIN-BEURRE were presented. Anadditional “catch trial” was presented last. Fol-lowing the prime display, instead of a letterstring, subjects were presented with the ques-tion “can you remember what was presented inthe previous display?” (in either English orFrench depending on the target language con-dition). Subjects were asked whether they hadnoticed anything above or below the numbereither in that trial or in any other trial.Subjects were seated about 45 cm from the

computer screen. The sequence of events was asfollows: a fixation display was presented for500 ms. This consisted of a plus sign at thecenter of the screen where the target would ap-pear, and seven plus signs above and below thefixation “+” where the flankers would appear.Following a blank screen for 100 ms, the primedisplay was presented, consisting of the targetnumber at the center of the screen and the flank-ers presented above and below. The center-to-center distance between the target number andthe flankers was 2.4 deg of visual angle. Theprime display remained on for 150 ms, and wasthen replaced by a mask which was the same asthe fixation display for 100 ms. The prime tar-get measured approximately 0.5 deg of visualangle in height and 0.1 deg in width. The flank-ers measured 0.5 deg in height and from 0.8 degto 1.6 deg in width depending on word length.After the response a blank screen was presentedfor 300 ms. The lexical decision target was then

presented in the center of the screen until a re-sponse was made. A new trial began after 2000ms. Subjects were encouraged to respond asquickly as possible while trying not to makemistakes. The experiment lasted approximately30 min and subjects were paid for their partici-pation.

Results

As an initial step, trials with errors on eitherthe number classification task or the lexical de-cision task were removed from the data set. Ifan error was made in a number classificationtrial, the subsequent language decision trial wasalso excluded from the RT analyses. RTs in thelexical decision task greater than 2000 ms andless than 200 ms were also removed. This ac-counted for less than 2% of the data, and did notchange the overall pattern of results. No subjectcould name the previously ignored flankers onthe final catch trial. However, one subject (na-tive language French) did report awareness ofwords being presented during the number clas-sification trials. This subject’s data were not in-cluded in the analysis. The 18 other subjectswere subjectively unaware of any distractingwords being presented, while most reported thatthey were occasionally aware of plus signs. Ini-tial analysis revealed that there were no differ-ences in self-reported L2 fluency for the 11 sub-jects with English as L1, and the 7 subjects withFrench as L1. Furthermore, first language (En-glish or French) did not exert a main effect andwas not involved in any significant higher-orderinteractions in either the RT or the error analy-sis. Therefore, all analysis was collapsed acrosssubjects. The mean of the median RTs and pro-portion of errors for these 18 subjects are pre-sented in Table 1.Word targets.Median correct RTs to word

targets in the lexical decision task were sub-jected to a 2 (Target Language: L1, L2) × 2(Flanker Language: L1, L2) × 2 (SemanticAssociation: Related, Unrelated) ANOVAwith subjects as a random factor.1 The maineffect of Target Language was significant,F(1,17) 4 22.0, p < .001, such that subjects

1 Analyses by items are not presented for Experiment 1 orfor Experiment 2, since the raw data are no longer available.

FOX360

were faster in deciding that a letter string madeup a real word in their first language (723 ms)than in their second language (778 ms). Theoverall negative priming effect of 21 ms (761ms vs 740 ms, for related and unrelated trials,respectively) was also significant,F(1,17) 48.8, p < .01. Of more interest, however, was asignificant interaction between Flanker Lan-guage and Negative Priming,F(1,17)4 4.3,p< .05. This interaction was due to reliable nega-tive priming occurring only when the primeflankers were in L1. Pairedt-tests showed reli-able negative priming in conditions L1-L1(t(17) 4 2.39, p < .05) and L1-L2 (t(17) 42.49,p < .05). In contrast, the negative primingeffect of 24 ms in condition L2-L2 (t(17) 41.00) or thefacilitation effect of 11 ms in con-dition L2-L1 (t(17) < 1) did not reach signifi-cance.Error rates in this task were low (averaging

less than 2%) and tended to correlate with RTs.Most of the subjects had no errors on the criticaltrials. Since errors were infrequent and providedno information beyond that of the RT data, theywere not subjected to formal analysis.Nonword targets.RTs to nonword targets in

the LDT were generally longer to L2 nonwordtargets (860 ms) than to L1 nonword targets(777 ms). Error rates were in the same direction(.04 errors for L1 nonword targets, and .06 forL2 nonword targets).

Discussion

The results of Experiment 1 demonstratedthat subjects wereslower to make a lexical de-cision to a word, if that word was semanticallyrelated to ignored flankers on the previous prim-

ing trial, relative to trials where the flankers andthe subsequent lexical decision word were un-related (see also Yee, 1991). Of particular in-terest to the present concern was the finding ofsignificant cross-language negative priming.When ignored flankers were in L1, reliablenegative priming of 35 ms was found when thesubsequent lexical decision word was in L2.However, when the ignored flankers were in L2,no negative priming was found when the lexicaldecision word was in L1. These results suggestthat cross-language negative priming only oc-curs from L1 to L2 and not from L2 to L1.The present asymmetric negative priming re-

sults are analogous to the asymmetric cross-language facilitatory effects of attended primes(Keatley et al., 1994; Kroll et al., 1992). Thenovel finding of the present study is the dem-onstration that a similar asymmetry exists in thecross-language inhibitory effects of ignoredprimes. When subjects ignore primes in one lan-guage, “spreading inhibition” (see Neumann &DeSchepper, 1992) apparently only operatesfrom L1 to L2 and not from L2 to L1. A noteshould be made here regarding the SOA be-tween the prime and the probe displays. In stud-ies investigating cross-language positive prim-ing it has generally been found that cross-language priming only occurs with SOAs of 300ms or less (e.g., Chen & Ng, 1989; Keatley etal., 1994). With longer SOAs it is assumed thatstrategic factors play a role in producing prim-ing effects. In the present experiment, the SOAwas approximately 941 ms, since the mean RTto the prime display was 641 ms, which wasfollowed by a blank screen for 300 ms. Thismay seem long in comparison to the SOAs used

TABLE 1MEANS OFMEDIAN CORRECTRTS (MS) AND ERRORRATES IN PARENTHESES FORRELATED AND UNRELATED TRIALS IN

EACH CONDITION OF EXPERIMENT 1

Experimental condition

L1-L1 L2-L1 L2-L2 L1-L2

Related 743 (.02) 715 (.02) 791 (.02) 795 (.03)Unrelated 708 (.01) 726 (.01) 767 (.00) 760 (.03)Priming −35 +11 −24 −35

Note.L1-L1 refers to prime distractors in L1 followed by a lexical decision probe word in L1; L2-L1 refers to primedistractors in L2 followed by lexical decision words in L1 and so on.

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 361

in positive priming paradigms but is actuallyrelatively short in terms of negative primingparadigms (see Neill & Valdes, 1992). This isbecause negative priming is assumed to reflectinhibition of ignored material which takes timeto develop. For example, if subjects are forcedto respond faster than usual in a negative prim-ing paradigm,positivepriming is observed frompreviously ignored flankers. However, if sub-jects emphasize accuracy and take longer to re-spond negative priming is observed (e.g., Neill& Westberry, 1987; Neumann & DeSchepper,1992). Similarly, Yee (1991) found positivepriming from ignored flankers when the SOAwas 500 ms but found negative priming whenthe SOA was increased to 600 ms. Thus, theidea is that an ignored flanker is initially acti-vated and then an inhibitory mechanism isimplemented which lasts for at least 2000 msand may then dissipate (see Neill & Valdes,1992; Neill & Westberry, 1987).The asymmetric pattern of cross-language

negative priming observed in the present ex-periment provides support for Kroll’s revisedmodel of bilingual language representation(Kroll, 1993; Kroll & Stewart, 1990, 1994).This model proposes that conceptual mappingsare stronger for L1 than for L2, and that, at leastfor adult second language learners, L2 wordswill initially be mapped to L1 words to gainaccess to concepts. A further prediction can bemade on the basis of Kroll’s revised hierarchicalmodel of bilingual language representation. Themodel assumes that lexical connections from L2to L1 are stronger than those from L1 to L2. Foradult second language learners, it is likely thateach new L2 entry has a direct mapping to L1,whereas only a small proportion of L1 entriesare likely to have mappings to L2. It can there-fore be predicted that translation equivalents(which share a high degree of semantic overlap)should produce more cross-language primingfrom L2 to L1 than words with less semanticoverlap such as semantic associates (see deGroot, 1992a; Kroll, 1993).In Experiment 1, word-pairs were associa-

tively related so that they are less likely to haveas many conceptual features in common astranslation equivalents. Translation equivalents

of concrete words are especially likely to sharemany conceptual features and thus have a highdegree of semantic overlap. It can therefore bepredicted that significant cross-language prim-ing should occur from L2 to L1 if translationequivalents for concrete words are used. Fur-thermore, on the basis of the Kroll and Stewart(1994) model it might be predicted that fortranslation equivalents, L2 ismore likely toprime L1 than the reverse. This is because, allother things being equal, L2 is more likely toactivate the corresponding lexical representa-tion in L1, whereas L1 is more likely to activatemeaning. Thus,greatercross-language primingmight be expected from L2 to L1 than viceversa when translation equivalents are used. Onthe other hand, if semantic priming tasks reflectprimarily semanticinfluence, the effects shouldbe larger from L1 to L2. This is because L1primes are more likely to engage meaning thanL2 primes. Experiment 2 examined these ques-tions in a negative priming paradigm usingtranslation equivalents of concrete words.

EXPERIMENT 2

Experiment 2 aimed to establish whethercross-language negative priming would occurwhen prime flankers and probe targets weretranslation equivalentsof each other. Sincetranslation equivalents for concrete words pre-sumably share more conceptual features thansemantic associates (see de Groot, 1992a),stronger priming from translation equivalentswould be expected than from semantic associ-ates. Thus, it can be predicted that the magni-tude of cross-language negative priming shouldbe greater, for both the L1-L2 and the L2-L1language-mix conditions, for translation equiva-lents relative to that observed with semantic-associates. As mentioned previously, it is un-clear what form of asymmetry to expect. Ifnegative priming in the paradigm used here re-flects primarily semantic influence then themagnitude of cross-language priming should begreater in the L1-L2 condition than in the L2-L1condition (cf., Kroll, 1993). However, if L2primes tend to activate lexical representations inL1 rather than meaning, then greater primingmight be expected in the L2-L1 condition than

FOX362

in the L1-L2 condition. Either way, the predic-tion is that primes presented in L2 should primetheir translation equivalents in L1 contrary tothe results for semantic associates.

Method

Subjects.The subjects were those who par-ticipated in Experiment 1. All subjects com-pleted Experiment 2 a few days after Experi-ment 1.Stimuli. Thirty-two cross-language transla-

tion equivalent pairs were selected (see Appen-dix B). All of the words named concrete objects(16 animate, 16 inanimate) and could be pre-sented either with the English translation as theprime flanker (e.g., MOUSE-SOURIS) or theFrench translation as the prime flanker (e.g.,SOURIS-MOUSE). Mean word frequencies(and standard deviations) were 110.7 (87.4) permillion for the English words, and 152.1 (213.2)per million for the French words. All of thewords were different from those presented inExperiment 1. The same six subjects who pro-vided baseline RTs to the words in therelatedand theunrelatedconditions for Experiment 1,also provided baseline RTs to words in thetranslationand theunrelatedconditions of Ex-periment 2. The median RTs for words whichwere subsequently used in the translation andthe unrelated conditions in the priming experi-ment were 601 and 596 ms, respectively, for theEnglish words, and 610 and 614 ms, respec-tively, for the French words. These RTs werenot different from each other, and fewer than2% errors were made. Thus, any slowing of RTsto these target words in the priming experimentcan be attributed to the influence of the primewords.Design and procedure.The experiment had a

fully within-subjects design. The within-subjects factors were (i) Target Language on theprobe display (L1, L2) and (ii) Relatedness(translation, unrelated). Half of the target num-bers in the prime display were even and halfwere odd. Likewise, half of the lexical decisiontargets were words and half were nonwords. Inthe 64 trials where the lexical decision targetwas a word (32 animate, 32 inanimate), the tar-get was the translation of the previously ignored

prime flankers in half of the trials. In the otherhalf of the trials there was no relation betweenthe target and the prime flankers. Word-pairswere organized into four separate lists, so thatevery word-pair appeared in every languagemix across subjects. To illustrate, the wordPLANE and its translation equivalent AVION,appeared as PLANE-AVION for the L1-L2block, and as AVION-PLANE for the L2-L1block for subjects with English as L1, and asAVION-PLANE for the L1-L2 block, and asPLANE-AVION for the L2-L1 block for sub-jects with French as L1. There were two lan-guage-order blocks in the experiment, each in-cluding 16 translation equivalent pairs, 16 un-related pairs, and 32 nonword probe targets, andthese were counterbalanced across subjects. Thegeneral procedure and apparatus were the sameas Experiment 1, and subjects completed thisexperiment a couple of days following Experi-ment 1.

Results

As in Experiment 1, trials with errors on ei-ther the number classification task or the lexicaldecision task were removed from the data set. Ifan error was made in a number classificationtrial, the subsequent lexical decision trial wasalso excluded from the RT analysis. RTs in thelexical decision task greater than 2000 ms andless than 200 ms were also removed. This ac-counted for less than 1% of the data. Two sub-jects reported awareness of words being pre-sented during the number classification trials.These subjects’ data were not included in theanalysis. The 17 remaining subjects were sub-jectively unaware of any distracting words be-ing presented, while most reported that theywere occasionally aware of plus signs beingpresented. The means of the median RTs andproportion of errors for these 17 subjects arepresented in Table 2.Word targets.Median correct RTs to word

targets in the LDT were subjected to a 2 (TargetLanguage: L1, L2) × 2 (Relatedness: transla-tion, unrelated) ANOVA with subjects as a ran-dom factor. There was a main effect for Targetlanguage,F(1,16)4 27.9,p < .001, such thatsubjects were 49 ms faster in identifying a target

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 363

in L1 relative to L2. The negative priming effectof 33 ms was also significant,F(1,16)4 13.4,p < .01. Of more theoretical interest, however,was the significant interaction between TargetLanguage and Relatedness,F(1,16)4 10.6,p <.01. Planned contrasts confirmed that the cross-language negative priming effects were reliablefor both the L1-L2,t(16)4 4.1,p < .001, andthe L2-L1, t(16) 4 2.66, p < .05, conditions.The interaction, however, demonstrated thatnegative priming from L1 to L2 was signifi-cantly larger (44 ms) than negative primingfrom L2 to L1 (23 ms).Nonword targets.RTs to L2 nonword targets

were generally longer than RTs to L1 nonwordtargets (814 ms and 752 ms, respectively). Onceagain, error rates went in the same direction (.06for L1 nonword targets and .08 for L2 nonwordtargets).

Discussion

Experiment 2 found significant cross-language negative priming from translationequivalents forboth L1-L2 and L2-L1 condi-tions. This result confirms the experimental pre-diction that words which share a high degree ofmeaning overlap (e.g., translation equivalents)should produce cross-language priming fromL2 to L1. As noted by Kroll (1993), this isprobably because of strong lexical links in thisdirection for translation equivalents. In contrast,words with a lower degree of meaning overlap(semantic associates) are less likely to produceL2-L1 priming as indeed was found in Experi-ment 1.In Experiment 2 there was once again a clear

asymmetry in cross-language negative primingeffects such that the magnitude of negative

priming from L1 to L2 was substantially largerthan that observed from L2 to L1. As notedpreviously, it might have been expected thatpriming would be larger in the L2-L1 conditionthan in the L1-L2 condition (for translationequivalents) on the basis of the model proposedby Kroll and Stewart (1994). However, both thecurrent experiment with negative priming aswell as previous research with positive priming(e.g., Chen & Ng, 1989; Keatley et al., 1994)fail to support that prediction. There is either noeffect of translation direction on translationpriming, or there is more translation primingfrom L1 to L2 than from L2 to L1. One expla-nation for this is that semantic priming tasks(positive or negative) may reflect primarily se-mantic influence so that more priming would beexpected in the L1 to L2 direction than viceversa. Alternatively, it may be the case that theslower speed of processing L2 allows there tobe more influence of L1 primes, regardless ofthe basis of priming. This possibility is prob-lematic for the interpretation of the current ex-periment and indeed all of the experiments oncross-language priming because bilinguals arealmost always somewhat faster in responding toL1 targets than to L2 targets. However, there isone study which found asymmetrical cross-language positive priming (more priming fromL1 to L2 than vice versa) even though subjectsdid not differ in their speed of response to L1and L2 targets (Keatley et al., 1994, Experiment1). This result is important in demonstrating thatan asymmetry in (positive) priming still occurseven when there is no imbalance in efficiencyon the LDT. It might also be noted that thesubjects in the current experiments were veryfluent in their second language. Kroll (1993)notes that there is a developmental shift in sec-ond language learning from word association toconcept mediation. It might therefore be thecase that the current subjects were “concept me-diators” in L2, which would explain why morepriming was not observed in the L2-L1 condi-tion with translation equivalents.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The main question addressed in this researchwas whether unattended words in one of a bi-

TABLE 2MEAN OF MEDIAN CORRECTRTS (MS) AND ERRORRATESIN BRACKETS FORTRANSLATION AND UNRELATED TRIALS IN

EACH CONDITION OF EXPERIMENT 2

Experimental condition

L2-L1 L1-L2

Translation 711 (.02) 770 (.05)Unrelated 688 (.01) 726 (.03)Priming −23 −44

FOX364

lingual’s languages could influence processingof an attended word in theother language. Evi-dence for such cross-language priming wouldprovide support for the notion that words in abilingual’s two languages share a common con-ceptual representation. The main results can besummarized as follows: (1) cross-languagenegative priming from semantic associates wasfound in the L1-L2 condition, but not in theL2-L1 condition (Experiment 1); (2) cross-language negative priming from translationequivalents was found for both L1-L2 and L2-L1 conditions, but the magnitude of negativepriming was greater in the L1-L2 condition (Ex-periment 2).The demonstration of cross-language nega-

tive priming effects supports the notion that themental representations of words in a bilingual’stwo languages are integrated within a sharedrepresentational system. The hypothesis thatwords in different languages are stored apartfrom one another in language-specific represen-tational systems would have difficulty in ac-counting for the present results (cf. Gerard &Scarborough, 1989). This is because primingwas measured fromunattendedprimes, so thatstrategic processing of the prime, and/orpostlexical meaning integration processes, wereunlikely (but see subsequent discussion for acaveat to this conclusion).To illustrate, in order to reduce the influence

of strategic factors a number of precautionswere taken. First, prime targets and prime flank-ers were in different stimulus domains (i.e.,numbers to-be-classified versus words to-be-ignored). This manipulation rules out any prim-ing of the flankers from processing of the tar-gets (cf., White, in press). Second, prime flank-ers were presented for just 150 ms and thenwere backward masked. This manipulationmakes it unlikely that attention was diverted tothe flanking words. Some support for this as-sumption was found in the final “catch-trial” ofExperiment 1: subjects could not identify thepreviously ignored flanker when cued on theprobe trial. Furthermore, in both experimentssubjects reported that they were subjectively un-aware of any words being presented during theprime trials and most expressed surprise when

told that words had in fact been presented onevery trial. Given all of these factors, it is un-likely that subjects were engaging in consciousstrategic processes or in postlexical meaning in-tegration processes in this study.2

Under these conditions, significant negativepriming is probably due to “spreading inhibi-tion” which is the counterpart to “spreading ac-tivation” between related nodes in memory(Anderson, 1983; Neumann & DeSchepper,1992). Such cross-language negative primingsuggests that inhibition can spread across dif-ferent languages. Furthermore, in support ofKroll’s revised hierarchical model of bilingualmemory (e.g., Kroll & Sholl, 1992; Kroll &Stewart, 1994), clear asymmetries were ob-served in cross-language negative priming.Cross-language negative priming from both se-mantic associates (Experiment 1) and fromtranslation equivalents (Experiment 2) waslarger when the primes were in L1 and the tar-gets in L2, than when the primes were in L2 andthe targets in L1. In addition, cross-languagenegative priming from L2-L1 was not signifi-cant with semantic associates but was signifi-cant with translation equivalents.As pointed out previously, Keatley et al.,

(1994) have proposed a language-specificmodel of bilingual memory which can accountfor asymmetries in cross-language priming.Their model attributes cross-language transla-tion-equivalent priming to one-to-one connec-tions between representations across separatelanguage-specific memory systems. An asym-metry in cross-language translation-equivalentpriming is predicted because of the strongerconnections from the L1 memory system. Incontrast, cross-language associative priming isattributed to a meaning integration process. Theasymmetry is again attributed to stronger con-nections from L1 which can be exploited by the

2 It should be noted, however, that no claim is being madehere that ignored words were presented below an “objec-tive” threshold of awareness (e.g., Cheesman & Merikle,1986). Rather, it is likely that ignored words were presentedsomewhere between an objective and a subjective thresholdof awareness. Given this, the possibility that some strategicprocessing might have taken place cannot be discountedwith certainty.

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 365

meaning integration processes. This model canaccount for asymmetrical cross-language prim-ing from attendedprimes (see Keatley et al.,1994). However, this model has more difficultyin accounting for the present cross-languagepriming from unattendedprimes. This is be-cause the meaning integration process is lesslikely to be operational in the present experi-ments.Rather, the current results are more support-

ive of a revised hierarchical model of bilingualmemory (Kroll, 1993; Kroll & Stewart, 1990,1994), which attributes asymmetrical cross-language priming to different kinds of connec-tions to a shared conceptual representationalsystem. When the language order is L1-L2, theconnections are assumed to be conceptual,whereas when the language order is L2-L1, theconnections are assumed to be lexical. The pat-tern of results in the present study supports thismodel very nicely. However, it should be notedthat the finding that cross-language priming isgreater from L1-L2 than from L2-L1 with trans-lation equivalents (Keatley et al., 1994; presentExperiment 2) suggests some modification ofthis theory. It is clearlynot the case that re-sponding to an L1 target word is influenced to agreater extent by the prior presentation of its L2translation than responding to an L2 target isinfluenced by the prior presentation of its L1equivalent. This may be because priming tasksreflect semantic influence or it may be that thelonger time to respond to L2 targets allows fora greater influence of L1 primes (but see Keat-ley et al., 1994, Experiment 1). Furthermore,fluent bilinguals may access concepts directlyfrom L2 (although not as easily as from L1),which would explain the current asymmetric re-sults with both semantic associates and transla-tion equivalents (cf., Kroll, 1993).

Cross-Language Priming with Noncognates

A final aspect of the present results whichdeserve some mention was the finding of cross-language negative priming with noncognates.This finding conflicts with the model proposedby de Groot and Nas (1991), which asserts thatan activated representation of an attended primedoes not activate associatednoncognatewords

in another language. This model would presum-ably also predict that an activated representationof an unattended word should not inhibit asso-ciated noncognate words in another language.In the present study, however, associatively re-lated noncognate words (in the L1-L2 condi-tion), as well as noncognate translation equiva-lents, did negatively prime each other acrosslanguages under conditions where subjects weresubjectively unaware of the primes.It should be noted at this point, however, that

de Groot (1992b) has recently revised her ear-lier conclusion (de Groot & Nas, 1991) thatnoncognate translations do not share a represen-tation at the conceptual level. She presents analternative view in terms of distributed concep-tual representations (see Hinton, McClelland, &Rumelhart, 1986). The idea is that conceptualrepresentations can be considered in terms of acollectionof nodes, one for each of the meaningelements that make up a concept. In terms ofbilingual memory, it is suggested that cognatetranslations may share more of the nodes inthese distributed representations than do non-cognate translations. This conclusion that thereare linkages across languages, even for noncog-nates, is supported by the present cross-language negative priming results with noncog-nates.To conclude, the results reported in the

present paper provide evidence for a commonrepresentational system in bilinguals. It is sug-gested that the negative priming paradigm mayprovide a useful additional technique for inves-tigating the organization of bilingual memory.This paradigm has the particular advantage thatit renders less likely conscious strategic pro-cesses and postlexical access meaning integra-tion processes, which can produce facilitation in“positive” priming paradigms (e.g., de Groot,1984). It may be prudent, however, to attach acaveat to these conclusions. In a recent reviewof the negative priming literature, Fox (1995)points out that negative priming from ignoredwords is inconsistent with some studies findingsignificant effects and other studies failing tofind significant effects. This inconsistencystands in contrast to the negative priming ob-served from ignored pictures, letters, etc. (see

FOX366

Fox, 1995). One feature of the studies whichhave found reliable negative priming fromwords is that they required a lexical decisiontask to the probe target (as in the present ex-periments). As argued by May et al. (1995), theuse of binary decision tasks may induce epi-sodic retrieval processes (see Neill & Valdes,1992 for an account of how episodic retrievalcan produce negative priming) which in turncan produce negative priming. In other words,lexical decision responses on the probe trialmay elicit postlexical processes (e.g., episodicretrieval) which cause the negative priming ef-fect. If this hypothesis is correct, the presentcross-language negative priming may be due topostlexical processes rather than to spreadinginhibition betweenlanguages. One way of ex-amining this issue would be to examine primingfrom ignored words while manipulating the na-ture of the probe task (e.g., lexical decision ver-sus naming). Research in the positive primingliterature has shown that naming responses areless susceptible to postlexical processes (e.g.,Neely, 1991), so that if cross-language negativepriming was found with naming on the probetrial the results could be more clearly attributedto a spreading inhibition mechanism.Given this uncertainty, it is encouraging to

note that a cross-language negative priming ef-fect has also been found by Neumann, McClos-key, and Felio (1994). Neumann et al., (1994)presented English-Spanish bilinguals with aprime task in which they had to name an at-tended English word while ignoring an irrel-evant English word. Then, on a probe trial, sub-jects were required to decide whether a letterstring was a Spanish word or not. The propor-tion of related word-pairs (i.e., noncognatetranslation equivalents) was kept low (.17) todiscourage strategic processes, and primes were

always presented in L1 (English) and targets inL2 (Spanish). The important finding was thatnocross-language positive priming was observedfrom the attended prime, while significantcross-language negative priming from the ig-nored prime was found. The authors argue thatthis dissociation between the two priming mea-sures suggests that investigators should be cau-tious about discounting language-independentmodels of bilingual lexical organization on thebasis of theabsenceof cross-language positivepriming effects alone. However as noted previ-ously, since Neumann et al., (1994) also used alexical decision task, the cross-language nega-tive priming effect may have been due topostlexical processes such as episodic retrieval.Note, however, that this account does not ex-plain why strategic processes, if they were op-erating, did not influence priming from the at-tended word. Qualifications aside, the most par-simonious explanation of cross-languagenegative priming effects (Neumann et al., 1994;present experiments) would seem to be that bothlanguages do indeed access a common concep-tual representation (Kroll, 1993). However,more research is clearly needed to determinewhether priming from ignored words is due topostlexical processes. If this were the case,cross-language negative priming could be ex-plained by the recent language-specific modelof bilingual language representation outlined byKeatley et al., (1994). Perhaps the optimal ap-proach would be to include measures of bothpositive and negative priming in studies of bi-lingual lexical organization. The current findingof asymmetrical cross-language negative prim-ing effects is of particular interest and is inagreement with a revised hierarchical model ofbilingual memory organization (e.g., Kroll,1993).

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 367

APPENDIX A

Semantically Associated Word-Pairs Used in Experiment 1

English-English French-English French-French English-French

MAN-WOMAN MARTEAU-NAIL GARCON-FILLE PEPPER-SELBREAD-BUTTER FLEUVE-WATER DUR-DOUX CITY-VILLEEAGLE-BIRD NOIR-WHITE FAIM-SOIF LIGHT-OBSCURDOCTOR-NURSE CHAUD-COLD CLEF-SERRURE FROWN-SOURIRELION-TIGER AMOUR-HATE TAPIS-CARPETTE GRASP-PRISEDOOR-KNOB FER-STEEL SONORE-BRUIT GREEN-HERBESPIDER-WEB CHANSON-MUSIC HAUT-BAS THERE-ICIARM-LEG CHIEN-CAT OUVERT-FERMER SWEET-AIGREBLADE-KNIFE ROI-QUEEN BIEN-MAL MOUNTAIN-COLLINEBLUE-SKY POMME-FRUIT BATEAU-MER MOON-ETOILEBRAIN-WAVE TETE-FOOT GENS-FOULE LIVE-MOURIRCAKE-BAKE PLAGE-SAND PAIN-BEURRE BIG-PETITSKIP-JUMP VENT-RAIN VIEUX-JEUNE WET-SECSTREAM-RIVER SAVON-WASH JOUR-NUIT EAST-OUESTPATH-WAY ECOLE-PUPIL LENT-RAPIDE TREE-FEUILLE

APPENDIX B

Translation Equivalent Stimuli Used inExperiment 2

Animate Inanimate

MOUSE-SOURIS GLASS-VERRESHEEP-MOUTON MONEY-ARGENTBROTHER-FRERE TICKET-BILETFLEA-PUCE SNOW-NEIGELAMB-AGNEAU HOUSE-MAISONBEAR-OURS CUP-TASSESHARK-REQUIN ROOF-TOITCOW-VACHE DOOR-PORTEWOLF-LOUP PLUG-BONDEHORSE-CHEVAL BREAD-PAINPOODLE-CANICHE JUMPER-TRICOTOTTER-LOUTRE PLANE-AVIONSISTER-SOEUR ROOM-SALLECHILD-ENFANT PLATE-ASSIETTEMONKEY-SINGE GLOVE-GANTSEAL-PHOQUE DESK-BUREAU

REFERENCES

ALTARRIBA, J. (1992). The representation of translationequivalents in bilingual memory. In R. Harris (Ed).,Cognitive processing in bilinguals,(pp. 157–174). Am-sterdam: Elsevier.

ANDERSON, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory ofmemory. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalMemory,22, 261–295.

BALOTA, D. A., & CHUMBLEY, J. I. (1984). Are lexical de-cision a good measure of lexical access? The role ofword frequency in the neglected decision stage.Jour-

nal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionand Performance,10, 340–357.

BEAUVILLAIN , C., & GRAINGER, J. (1987). Accessing inter-lexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access.Journal of Memory and Language,26,658–672.

CHEESMAN, J., & MERIKLE, P. M. (1986). Distinguishingconscious from unconscious perceptual processes.Ca-nadian Journal of Psychology,40, 343–367.

CHEN, H. C., & HO, C. (1986). Development of Stroop in-terference in Chinese-English bilinguals.Journal of

FOX368

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory andCognition,12, 397–401.

CHEN, H. C., & NG, M. L. (1989). Semantic facilitation andtranslation priming effects in Chinese-English bilin-guals.Memory and Cognition,17, 454–462.

COLLINS, A. M., & L OFTUS, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychologi-cal Review,82, 407–428.

DEGROOT, A. M. B. (1984). Primed lexical decision: Com-bined effects of the proportion of related prime-targetpairs and the stimulus onset asynchrony of prime andtarget.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 253–280.

DEGROOT, A. M. B. (1992a). Bilingual lexical representa-tion: A closer look at conceptual representations. In R.Frost and L. Katz (Eds.),Orthography, phonology,morphology, and meaning.Amsterdam: Elsevier.

DEGROOT, A. M. B. (1992b). Determinants of word transla-tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition,18, 1001–1018.

DEGROOT, A. M. B., DANNEBURG, L., & VANHELL, J. G.(1994). Forward and backward word translation by bi-linguals.Journal of Memory and Language,33, 600–629.

DEGROOT, A. M. B., & NAS, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical repre-sentation of cognates and noncognates in compoundbilinguals.Journal of Memory and Language,30, 90–123.

DURGUNOGLU, A. Y., & ROEDIGER, H. L. (1987). Test dif-ferences in accessing bilingual memory.Journal ofMemory and Language,26, 377–391.

DYER, F. N. (1971). Color naming interference in monolin-guals and bilinguals.Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior,10, 297–302.

FOX, F. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractorsin visual selection: A review.Psychonomic Bulletinand Review,2, 145–173.

GERARD, L., & SCARBOROUGH, D. L. (1989). Language-specific access of homographs by bilinguals.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory andCognition,15, 305–315.

GRAINGER, J., & BEAUVILLAIN , C. (1988). Associative prim-ing in bilinguals: Some limits of interlingual facilita-tion effects.Canadian Journal of Psychology,42,261–273.

HINTON, G. E., MCCLELLAND , J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E.(1986). Distributed representations. In D. E. Rumel-hart, J. L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group(Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations inthe microstructure of cognition: (Vol. 1.) Foundations.(pp. 77–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

KEATLEY, C. W., & DE GELDER, B. (1992). The bilingualprimed lexical decision task: Cross-language primingdisappears with speeded responses.European Journalof Cognitive Psychology,4, 273–292.

KEATLEY, C. W., SPINKS, J., & DE GELDER, B. (1994).Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects.Memoryand Cognition,22, 70–84.

KIRSNER, K., SMITH, M. C., LOCKHART, R. S., KING, M. L.,& JAIN, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: Language-specific units in an integrated network.Journal of Ver-bal Learning and Verbal Behavior,23, 519–539.

KROLL, J. F. (1993). Accessing conceptual representationsfor words in a second language. In R. Schreuder and B.Weltens (Eds.),The Bilingual Lexicon.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

KROLL, J. F., & SHOLL, A. (1992). Lexical and conceptualmemory in fluent and nonfluent bilinguals. In R. Harris(Ed.),Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals.Amsterdam:Elsevier.

KROLL, J. F., SHOLL, A., ALTARRIBA, J., LUPPINO, C.,MOYNIHAN, L., & SANDERS, C. (1992). Cross-languagesemantic priming: Evidence for independent lexicaland conceptual contributions. Unpublished manuscript.Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA.

KROLL, J. F., & STEWART, E. (1990). Concept mediation inbilingual translation. Paper presented at the 31st An-nual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Or-leans.

KROLL, J. F., & STEWART, E. (1994). Category interferencein translation and picture naming: Evidence for asym-metric connections between bilingual memory repre-sentations.Journal of Memory and Language,33,149–174.

MACLEOD, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on theStroop effect: An integrative review.PsychologicalBulletin, 109,163–203.

MAY, C. P., KANE, M. J., & HASHER, L. (1995). Determi-nants of negative priming.Psychological Bulletin,118,35–54.

MEYER, D. E., & SCHVANEVELDT, R. W. (1971). Facilitationin recognizing pairs of words: Evidence for a depen-dence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experi-mental Psychology,90, 227–234.

MCKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1979). Priming in episodicand semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behaviour,18, 463–480.

NEELY, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visualword recognition: A selective review of current find-ings and theories. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys(Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recog-nition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

NEILL, W. T. (1977). Inhibitory and facilitatory processes inselective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: Human Perception and Performance,3, 444–450.

NEILL, W. T., & VALDES, L. A. (1992). Persistence of nega-tive priming: Steady state or decay?Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,18, 565–576.

NEILL, W. T., & WESTBERRY, R. L. (1987). Selective atten-tion and the suppression of cognitive noise.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory andCognition,13, 327–334.

NEUMANN, E., & DESCHEPPER, B. G. (1992). An inhibition-based fan effect: Evidence for an active suppression

CROSS-LANGUAGE PRIMING 369

mechanism in selective attention.Canadian Journal ofPsychology,46, 1–40.

NEUMANN, E., MCCLOSKEY, M. S., & FELIO, A. C. (1994).Primed lexical decision tasks: Cross-language positivepriming disappears, negative priming doesn’t. Manu-script submitted for publication.

NORRIS, D. (1984). A computer-based programmable tachis-toscope for nonprogrammers.Behavior Research,Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers,16, 25–27.

POSTMAN, L., & KEPPEL, G. (1970).Norms of word asso-ciation.New York: Academic Press.

POTTER, M. C., SO, K-F., VON ECKHARDT, B., & FELDMAN,L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation inbeginning and more proficient bilinguals.Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,23, 23–38.

PRESTON, M. S., & LAMBERT, W. E. (1969). Interlingual in-terference in a bilingual version of the Stroop color-word task.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be-havior, 8, 84–88.

SANCHEZ-CASAS, R. M., DAVIES, C. D., & GARCIA-ALBEA,J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploringthe cognate/noncognate distinction.European Journalof Cognitive Psychology,4, 293–310.

SCHWANENFLUGEL, P. J., & REY, M. (1986). Interlingual se-mantic facilitation: Evidence for a common represen-tational system in the bilingual.Journal of Memory andLanguage,25, 605–618.

SMITH, M. C. (1991). On the recruitment of semantic infor-mation for word fragment completion: Evidence from

bilingual priming. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: Learning, Memory and Cognition,17, 234–244.

SNODGRASS, J. G. (1984). Concepts and their surface repre-sentations.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be-havior, 23, 3–22.

STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbalreactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18,643–662.

TIPPER, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitorypriming by ignored objects.Quarterly Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology,37A, 571–590.

TREISMAN, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selectiveattention.Psychological Review,76, 282–299.

TZELGOV, J., & HENIK, A. (1989). The insensitivity of thesemantic relatedness effect to surface differences andits implications. Paper presented to the First EuropeanCongress of Psychology, July 1989. Amsterdam, TheNetherlands.

TZELGOV, J., HENIK, A., & LEISER, D. (1990). ControllingStroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory and Cognition,16, 760–771.

WHITE, M. J. (1995). Unattended words need to be primedto be recognized.Canadian Journal of ExperimentalPsychology,118,35–54.

YEE, P. L. (1991). Semantic inhibition of ignored wordsduring a figure classification task.Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology,43A, 127–153.

(Received July 7, 1993)(Revision received May 5, 1995)

FOX370