The Interaction of Type, Translation Dominance and Concreteness in the Processing of Translation-ambiguous Words

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2019.02.007

Abstract

CLC Number:

H319

WANG Xiaolin, JIANG Ying, FANG Nan, ZHANG Ping. The Interaction of Type, Translation Dominance and Concreteness in the Processing of Translation-ambiguous Words[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(02): 57-69.

References

Boada, R., R. Sánchez-casas, J.M. Gavilan, J.E. Garciaalbea & N. Tokowicz. 2013. Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals [J]. Bilingualism:Language & Cognition 16(1):183-197.
Bracken, J., T. Degani, C. Eddington & N. Tokowicz. 2017. Translation semantic variability:How semantic relatedness affects learning of translation-ambiguous words [J]. Bilingualism:Language & Cognition 20(4):783-794.
Crutch, S.J. & E.K. Warrington. 2003. The organisation of semantic memory:Evidence from semantic refractory access dysphasia [J]. Brain and Language 87:81-82.
Crutch, S. J. & E. K. Warrington. 2004. Abstract words are represented in an associative network whilst concrete words are represented in a categorical network [J]. Brain and Language 91:13-14.
Crutch, S.J. & E.K. Warrington. 2005. Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks [J]. Brain 128(3):615-627.
de Groot, A.M.B. 1992. Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations [A]. In R. Frost & L. Katz (eds.). Advances in Psychology [C]. Oxford: North-Holland. 389-412.
de Groot, A.M.B. & R. Poot. 1997. Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language:The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory [J]. Language Learning 47(2):215-264.
Degani, T. & N. Tokowicz. 2010. Ambiguous words are harder to learn [J]. Bilingualism:Language & Cognition 13(3):299-314.
Eddington, C.M. & N. Tokowicz. 2013. Examining English-German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition [J]. Bilingualism:Language & Cognition 16(2):442-457.
Hino, Y. & S.J. Lupker. 1996. Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming:An alternative to lexical access accounts [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance 22(6):1331-1356.
Jastrzembski, J.E. 1981. Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon [J]. Cognitive Psychology 13(2):278-305.
Laxén, J. & J.M. Lavaur. 2010. The role of semantics in translation recognition:Effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations [J]. Bilingualism:Language & Cognition 13(2):157-183.
Lin, C.J.C. & K. Ahrens. 2010. Ambiguity advantage revisited:Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns [J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39:1-19.
Paivio, A. 1991. Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status [J]. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie 45(3):255-287.
Rodd, J., G. Gaskell & W. Marslen-Wilson. 2002. Making sense of semantic ambiguity:Semantic competition in lexical access [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 46:245-266.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., K.K. Harnishfeger & R.W. Stowe. 1988. Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words [J]. Journal of Memory & Language 27(5):499-520.
Schwanenflugel, P.J. & E.J. Shoben. 1983. Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9(1):82-102.
Tokowicz, N. & J.F. Kroll. 2007. Number of meanings and concreteness:Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages [J]. Language & Cognitive Processes 22(5):727-779.
Tokowicz, N., J.F. Kroll, A.M.B. de Groot & J.G. van Hell. 2002. Number-of-translation norms for Dutch-English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production [J]. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers 34(3):435-451.
李艳红、刘永芳、杜秀芳. 2003. 内隐和外显记忆测验中的具体性效应[J]. 心理科学(5):823-828.
彭聃龄、邓园、陈宝国. 2003. 汉语多义单字词的识别优势效应[J]. 心理学报(5):569-575.
王悦、张积家. 2013. 熟练中-英双语者对多义词早期识别中语义和语法的相互作用[J]. 心理学报(3):298-309.
王悦、张积家. 2017. 中国英语学习者翻译歧义词的跨语言识别[J]. 外语界(4):71-78, 87.
王振宏、姚昭. 2012. 情绪名词的具体性效应:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报44(2):154-165.
张萍. 2010. 对单词联想测试选词和反应分类标准的再思考[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报(1):41-45, 127.
张萍. 2011. 英汉语心理词库联想反应的具体性效应对比研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(3):54-62.
张萍. 2016. 中国英语学习者心理词汇语义加工中的同译效应[J]. 外语教学与研究48(3):382-395, 479.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[7]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[8]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[9]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[10]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 61-63.
[14]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.
[15]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.