Copyright 2007 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 938

The different languages of the world have adopted dif-ferent sets of arbitrary symbols as part of the communi-cation process that is special to humans. However, given the common origin of specific groups of languages, there is a certain amount of overlap across the symbols these languages use. Nonaccidental overlap at the level of word representations gives rise to what are commonly referred to as cognate words. For a given pair of languages, cognate words are typically defined as translation equivalents that have a relatively high level of form overlap due to their sharing a common etymological root. Thus, for example, many English–French cognates have a common Latin or Greek origin, such as cognition, chaos, and many more ordinary words of these languages. Thus, cognate words in two languages are words that have identical meanings and a nonnegligible level of form overlap (i.e., shared pho-nemes and/or letters).1 In the present study, we examined in what ways cognate words might be represented and pro-cessed differently from noncognate words by proficient bilinguals.

Cognate translations have been shown to behave differ-ently, as compared with noncognate translations, in a num-ber of experimental situations. Cognate words are easier to recognize than noncognates in isolated word recogni-tion tasks such as lexical decision (Dijkstra, Grainger, & van Heuven, 1999; Lemhöfer & Dijkstra, 2004; Lemhöfer,

Dijkstra, & Michel, 2004). Cognate words are translated more quickly than noncognate words (de Groot, 1992; Sánchez-Casas, Davis, & García-Albea, 1992). Cognate translations typically produce stronger priming than do noncognate translations in a variety of priming paradigms. For example, in long-lag priming studies, where the prime and the target are separated by a large number of inter-vening trials, only cognates have been shown to produce facilitation (Cristoffanini, Kirsner, & Milech, 1986; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001). However, Bowers, Mimouni, and Ar-guin (2000) failed to find priming across cognates in lan-guages with different scripts (French and Arabic) but did find priming between orthographically similar (French/English) cognates, thus suggesting that orthographic over-lap is critical for obtaining long-lag priming.

Recent research on visual word recognition has turned to the masked priming paradigm (Forster & Davis, 1984) as a technique for uncovering the underlying representations that is untainted by strategic and/or episodic influences. Using the masked priming paradigm, a number of studies have shown stronger priming across cognate translations, as compared with noncognate translations (de Groot & Nas, 1991; Gollan, Forster, & Frost, 1997; Sánchez-Casas et al., 1992). These studies have provided clear evidence that cognate translations prime each other in the masked priming paradigm but somewhat mixed evidence for non-

Cognate status and cross-script translation priming

MADELEINE VOGA Université de Provence, Marseille, France

AND

JONATHAN GRAINGERCNRS and Université de Provence, Marseille, France

Greek–French bilinguals were tested in three masked priming experiments with Greek primes and French targets. Related primes were the translation equivalents of target words, morphologically related to targets, or phonologically related to targets. In Experiment 1, cognate translation equivalents (phonologically similar translations) showed facilitatory priming, relative to matched phonologically related primes, in conditions in which morphologically related primes showed no effect (50-msec prime exposure). Cross-language morphologi-cal priming emerged at longer prime exposure durations (66 msec), but cognate primes continued to generate more priming than did those in the morphological condition. In Experiments 2 and 3, the level of phonological overlap across translation equivalents was varied, and priming effects were measured against those for matched phonologically related primes and those in an unrelated prime condition. When measured against the unrelated baseline, cognate primes showed the typical advantage over noncognate primes. However, this cognate advan-tage disappeared when priming was measured against the phonologically related prime condition. The results are discussed in terms of how translation equivalents are represented in bilingual memory.

Memory & Cognition2007, 35 (5), 938-952

J. Grainger, grainger@up.univ-mrs.fr

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 939

cognate priming in the same conditions. The clearest evi-dence for noncognate priming has been provided by Gollan et al. with Hebrew–English bilinguals. The significant noncognate priming found by Gollan et al. was attributed to the change in script in the two languages under study. The change in script across prime and target would allow improved processing of masked primes by providing the lexical processor with a distinct cue as to which language the word belongs to. However, robust noncognate priming was reported by Grainger and Frenck-Mestre (1998) in same-script conditions (English–French bilinguals), but the effect was robust only when the participants had to perform a semantic categorization task on target words (see Finkbeiner, Forster, Nicol, & Nakamura, 2004, for a replication with Japanese–English bilinguals). In line with previous lexical decision experiments, in Grainger and Frenck-Mestre’s study, noncognate translation primes did not significantly facilitate lexical decision responses to target words. Thus, when the task is lexical decision, the evidence at present points to a clear advantage for cognate over noncognate translation primes in the masked priming paradigm (but see Kim & Davis, 2003).2

The robust effects of cognate translations across lan-guages can be likened to the equally robust effects of mor-phologically related primes within languages in the masked priming paradigm (e.g., Drews & Zwitserlood, 1995; Frost, Forster, & Deutsch, 1997; Grainger, Colé, & Segui, 1991). Indeed, the question of whether or not cognate translation equivalents have a special representational status in bilin-gual language processing appears to be directly related to the issue concerning the status of morphologically related words within a given language. Morphologically related words share form and meaning within a language similarly to the way cognate translations share form and meaning across languages. It is therefore possible that a general learning mechanism, responsible for detecting correlations in form and meaning, could be the basis of how morpho-logically related words are represented in monolinguals and how cognate words are represented in bilinguals. Thus, a morphological type of organization of the lexical sys-tem (Bybee, 1985) could transcend languages, as has been proposed by Kirsner and colleagues (Cristoffanini et al., 1986; Kirsner, Lalor, & Hird, 1993) and Sánchez-Casas and García-Albea (2005). Morphemic representations would be shared across languages to the extent that the dif-ferent word forms in a given morphological family share orthography and/or phonology. This approach fits well with the so-called supralexical approach to morphological representation (Giraudo & Grainger, 2001), where amodal representations of root morphemes receive bottom-up ac-tivation from all the words formed by that root. In the case of cognate words in bilinguals, these morphemic repre-sentations would be not only modality independent, but also language independent, so that words having a com-mon etymological root would share a common morphemic representation independently of language. This theoretical position is illustrated in Figure 1.

According to this theoretical position, the cognate advantage in masked priming with the lexical decision task is due to the morphemic representation shared by

the prime and the target. If this is indeed the case, we should not be able to distinguish cognate priming effects from the effects of cross-language morphological prim-ing. This can be seen in Figure 1, where priming arising from a shared morphemic representation should generate equivalent effects for cognate and morphologically related primes. Thus, the French prime words riche and richesse should be equally good primes for the English target word rich. This was examined in Experiment 1, where we com-pared priming across cognate translation equivalents with priming from morphologically related words in the other language. Both the cognate and the morphological primes were matched in terms of their phonological overlap with the target words, and priming was measured against a con-dition with the same level of phonological overlap but no morphological or semantic relation with the targets.

In Experiment 1, two prime exposure durations (50 and 66 msec) were used that covered the typical range of ex-posures used in masked priming experiments investigat-ing translation priming and morphological priming. More precisely, it has been found that at the shorter of these du-rations, morphological priming occurs independently of semantic transparency, with effects of semantic transpar-ency emerging at longer prime durations (Longtin, Segui, & Hallé, 2003; Rastle, Davis, Marslen-Wilson, & Tyler, 2000; Rastle, Davis, & New, 2004; but see Diependaele, Sandra, & Grainger, 2005, for a different pattern). Prim-ing from pseudomorphological primes (e.g., corner–corn) observed with short prime durations has been taken as evidence for blind morphological decomposition whereby roots and affixes are extracted from any fully decompos-able stimulus independently of whether the stimulus is a true complex word or not (e.g., Taft & Forster, 1975). Therefore, Experiment 1 not only allows us to test a mor-phological account of the cognate advantage in bilinguals, but also provides an opportunity to examine the nature of prelexical morphological decomposition.

EXPERIMENT 1

MethodParticipants. Twenty-four Greek–French bilinguals who re-

ported normal or corrected-to-normal vision participated in the ex-periment. They were Greek students from the University of Mont-

Figure 1. A morphological account of the cognate advantage. Cognate words (e.g., rich–riche, for English and French) share a common language-independent morphemic representation, so that all morphological relatives of rich and riche are connected to the same representation.

« rich »

richer rich riche richesse

940 VOGA AND GRAINGER

pellier (mostly students from the Language Department) who had been taught French as a second language (L2) during their school years in Greece and had at least a “First Certificate” level (“Certifi-cat”). They had lived in France for at least 1 year.

Stimuli and Design. Forty-five words and 45 nonwords were used as targets. Targets were always presented in French (L2) and primes in Greek (first language; L1). The target words were French–Greek cognates, exclusively nouns, four to eight letters long (M 5.3 letters), with an average frequency of 48 occurrences per million (New, Pallier, Ferrand, & Matos, 2001). Each French target was primed by three types of Greek prime: a cognate prime, a mor-phologically related prime, and a phonologically related prime (see Table 1 for examples). Cognate primes were presented in the nomi-native singular and in Greek lowercase letters in order to preserve the obligatory stress marker over the appropriate vowel. The Greek cognates were four to seven letters long (M 5.3 letters). Visuo-orthographic overlap across prime and target was minimal, varying from zero similar letters to one similar letter (M 0.19) in the same position ( 1 position counted from the word beginning). A similar letter was counted as one of the eight Greek letters that are visu-ally similar to the Roman lowercase letters a, b, i, k, o, s, u, and x. Phonological overlap varied from two to five identical phonemes in the same position (M 78%). Morphologically related primes were suffixed derivations of the Greek cognate, except for seven cases in which the plural nominal form of the noun was used. The derivations included 15 diminutives and 14 adjectival forms. Using suffixed derivations allowed us to match the phonological overlap across prime and target in the cognate prime and the morphological prime conditions. Phonologically related primes shared a high pro-portion of phonemes with the targets (M 69.9%) but had no obvi-ous semantic relation with them. In order to have the phonological overlap between the phonological primes and the target as close as possible to that between the cognate primes and the target, we chose words that preserved the stress in exactly the same position. French word targets and the corresponding Greek prime stimuli are shown in Appendix A. Forty-five French nonwords were created respect-ing the phonotactic constraints of the language and were matched for length with the real words. The primes for the nonword targets matched the word primes in terms of phonological overlap and were constructed so as to mimic the cognate, morphological, and phono-logical primes for the word targets. Three experimental lists were created by rotating the targets across the three priming conditions, using a Latin-square design, so that each target appeared only once for a given participant at each prime duration but was tested in all the priming conditions across participants. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three lists and received the same list twice at each of the two prime exposures.

Procedure and Apparatus. The experiment was conducted on a PC using DMDX software (Forster & Forster, 2003). Each trial consisted of three visual events. The first was a forward mask con-sisting of a row of nine hash marks that appeared for 500 msec. The mask was immediately followed by the prime. The prime was, in

turn, immediately followed by the target word, which remained on the screen until the participants responded. The intertrial interval was 500 msec. The two prime durations used in this experiment were 50 and 66 msec, and each participant was tested at both durations, with order counterbalanced across participants. Primes appeared in the middle of the screen presented in Greek lowercase characters (12 point). Targets were presented in 16-point Times New Roman. The participants were seated 50 cm from the computer screen. They were requested to make lexical decisions on the targets as quickly and as accurately as possible by pressing the appropriate key on the computer keyboard. After 16 practice trials, the participants received the 90 experimental trials at one prime exposure in one block and the same set of trials at the other prime exposure in a second block. A subset (15) of the participants in Experiment 1 were also tested for prime visibility at the 66-msec prime duration. The conditions were the same as those in the main experiment, but without the nonword trials, and the participants were asked to report any Greek words that they could identify (note that all the primes were Greek words and the targets were French words). Only 1 of these participants reported seeing any Greek words, and the two words reported by this participant were incorrect.

ResultsCorrect response times (RTs) were averaged across

participants after excluding outliers (RTs 1,500 msec, 0.22% of the data). The results are presented in Table 2. An ANOVA was performed on these data, with prime type (cognate, morphological, or phonological) and prime du-ration as within-participants factors. List was included as a between-participants factor in order to extract any vari-ance associated with this variable.

There was a significant main effect of prime type [F1(2,42) 29.92, p .001; F2(2,88) 22.04, p .001]. The main effect of prime duration was significant [F1(1,21) 5.23, p .05; F2(1,44) 21.88, p .001], and the interaction between prime type and prime dura-tion was significant by participants [F1(2,42) 4.42, p .05; F2(2,88) 2.86], reflecting an increase in the size of priming effects as prime duration increased.

Planned pairwise comparisons were performed in order to examine cognate and morphological priming, rela-tive to the phonological prime condition. These showed a significant effect of cognate priming at both durations [F1(1,21) 14.35, p .01, and F2(1,44) 18.98, p .001, at the 50-msec prime duration; F1(1,21) 38.75, p .001, and F2(1,44) 37.26, p .001, at the 66-msec duration]. Morphological facilitation, relative to the pho-nological condition, was not significant at the 50-msec

Table 1 Sample Stimuli and Degree of Prime–Target Phonological Overlap in the

Three Priming Conditions (Cognate, Morphological, and Phonological) Tested in Experiment 1

Priming Condition

Phonemic Phonemic PhonemicTarget Cognate Overlap Morphological Overlap Phonological Overlap

Word canon κανόνι 3.23 κανονιά 3.20 κανόνας 3.3 (cannon) / / (78%) / / (78%) / / (69.9%)

(cannon-shot) (rule)

Nonword muson μιζόνι 3 μιζονάκι 3 μιζόνο 3

/ / (75%) / / (75%) / / (75%)

Note—Phonemic overlap is given as number of phonemes in common (with percentage in parentheses).

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 941

prime presentation (both Fs 1), but it was significant at the 66-msec duration [F1(1,21) 17.98, p .001; F2(1,44) 15.46, p .001]. The cognate primes pro-duced significantly shorter RTs than did the morphological primes at the 50-msec prime duration [F1(1,21) 14.87, p .001; F2(1,44) 12.18, p .01] and at the 66-msec prime duration [F1(1,21) 8.26, p .01; F2(1,44) 5.46, p .05]. The error analysis for word targets showed no significant main effects or interaction.

In the RT analysis for nonword targets, there was a main effect of prime type that was significant only by partici-pants [F1(2,42) 3.29, p .05; F2(2,88) 1.74], with morphological and cognate primes producing longer RTs than did phonological control primes. The main effect of prime duration was significant [F1(1,21) 11.06, p .01; F2(1,44) 95.15, p .001], but the interaction with prime type was not (both Fs 1). There were no signifi-cant effects in the error analysis for nonword targets.

DiscussionThe results of Experiment 1 show very clear priming

for cognate translations, when measured against phono-logical controls. The cognate priming effect was robust at both prime durations (50 msec and 66 msec), whereas morphological priming appeared only at the longer prime duration (66 msec). Furthermore, the cognate prime con-dition produced significantly shorter RTs than did the morphological prime condition. These differences be-tween the cognate priming condition and the morphologi-cal priming condition strongly suggest that cognate prim-ing is not just a variety of cross-language morphological priming. If a common language-independent morphemic representation were the basis of the strong cognate prim-ing effects observed in prior research, we would have ex-pected cross-language morphological primes to show a similar pattern (see Figure 1). This was evidently not the case in Experiment 1.

It is also important to note that cross-language mor-phological priming was robust only at the longer prime duration in Experiment 1. This result suggests that recent pseudomorphological priming effects (e.g., corner–corn) found at short (50-msec) prime durations (Longtin et al., 2003; Rastle et al., 2004) can be distinguished from the cross-language (and cross-script) morphological priming found only at the 66-msec prime duration in Experiment 1.

Furthermore, our results suggest that pseudomorphologi-cal priming operates on orthographic, not phonological, representations. The morphologically complex Greek prime words contained roots that were phonologically very similar to the French target words (the average over-lap between the root of the Greek prime word and the French target was 83% phonemes in common). Thus, any prelexical decomposition based on phonological repre-sentations could have led to some morphological prim-ing at the short prime duration. Given that cross-language (and cross-script) morphological priming was found only at 60-msec prime durations, it seems likely that these ef-fects are being driven by amodal, supralexical morpho-logical representations, as has been proposed by Giraudo and Grainger (2001; see also Diependaele et al., 2005).

Finally, the main effect of prime duration in Experi-ment 1 reflects within-condition incremental priming as described by Jacobs, Grainger, and Ferrand (1995). The extra prime duration provides extra time for prime pro-cessing and, therefore, allows prime stimuli to exert a greater influence on target word processing.3

EXPERIMENT 2

We now will turn to examine whether the cognate ad-vantage observed in previous studies might not simply have been due to the combination of form and meaning overlap across primes and targets. Of course, the fact that cognate primes generated facilitation, relative to form-related control primes, in Experiment 1 suggests that cog-nate priming is not just form priming. This does not, how-ever, exclude the possibility that the cognate advantage, relative to noncognate primes, reflects a combination of form and semantic priming.

To our knowledge, only one published study (Sánchez-Casas et al., 1992) has measured cognate priming effects, relative to form-related control primes. However, there are two problems with the control condition used by Sánchez-Casas et al. First, the control primes were nonwords, and prior research has shown that form-related nonword primes can either facilitate or inhibit target word recognition as a function of the characteristics of the prime and the target’s orthographic neighborhood (Forster & Davis, 1991; van Heuven, Dijkstra, Grainger, & Schriefers, 2001). Second, only orthographic overlap was controlled, allowing varia-

Table 2 Reaction Times (RTs, in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors for Lexical Decisions

to Targets Primed by Cognate, Morphological, and Phonological Primes at the Two Prime Durations in Experiment 1, With Net Priming Effects Relative

to the Phonological Control Condition

Prime Cognate (C) Morphological (M) Phonological (P) Net Priming Effects

Duration (msec) RT Error RT Error RT Error P C P M

Words

50 588 3.89 619 3.06 624 3.33 36 566 569 3.89 585 4.44 619 6.39 50 34

Nonwords

50 750 11.11 749 6.39 735 9.17 15 1466 682 7.22 691 7.22 669 5.00 13 22

942 VOGA AND GRAINGER

tion in phonological overlap to have possibly influenced the results (Brysbaert, Van Dyck, & Van de Poel, 1999; Dijkstra et al., 1999).

Experiment 2 was therefore designed to include an im-proved form-related control condition against which cog-nate priming effects could be accurately measured. Our form control primes were words that matched the cognate prime in phonological overlap with targets. Given the dif-ferent scripts, there was no orthographic overlap across primes and targets. Furthermore, since Greek and French have a large number of cognates that vary in terms of their phonological overlap, we also varied the degree of form overlap in our cognate primes creating two cognate prime conditions (high and low overlap) and one noncognate condition.

MethodParticipants. Thirty Greek–French bilinguals participated in the

study. These were from the same population as the participants in Experiment 1, had been taught French as an L2 during their school years in Greece, and had lived in France for at least 1 year.

Stimuli and Design. Ninety words and 90 nonwords were used as targets. All the target words were nouns, and they were presented in French (L2), whereas all the primes were presented in Greek (L1). The 90 French target words had an average frequency of 36 occurrences per million (New et al., 2001) and consisted of (1) 30 cognates of high phonological overlap between French and Greek, three to seven letters long (M 5.2 letters), (2) 30 cognates of low phonological overlap between French and Greek, three to eight let-ters long (M 5.3 letters), and (3) 30 noncognate words with no phonemes or letters in common between the French and the Greek translation equivalents, three to seven letters long (M 5.2 letters). These three categories of target word represent the three levels of the form overlap factor that define the amount of phonological over-lap between the French target word and its translation equivalent in Greek (high, low, and none). Each target was primed by three different primes: (1) the translation equivalent of the target, (2) a

phonologically related but semantically unrelated prime, and (3) a completely unrelated prime. All the primes were Greek nominative singular words presented in lowercase letters. As in Experiment 1, phonologically related primes were matched to the cognate primes in terms of prime–target phonological overlap and had no obvious semantic relation with the target. In the noncognate condition, the “phonologically related” primes had the same status as the unrelated primes and were included simply for the purposes of a balanced de-sign. Table 3 provides a summary of the priming conditions tested in Experiment 2. The French word targets and the corresponding Greek prime stimuli are shown in Appendix B. Ninety nonwords were cre-ated that were matched for length with the word targets. Primes for nonword targets were selected so as to mimic, as far as possible, the different types of primes for word targets. Examples are presented in Table 3. The “cognate primes” of the nonword targets were con-structed in such a way that there were two levels of phonological re-latedness, low and high, between the Greek and the French versions. Three experimental lists were created by rotating the targets across the three priming conditions, using a Latin-square design, so that each target appeared only once for a given participant but was tested in all the priming conditions across participants. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three lists.

Procedure and Apparatus. The procedure and apparatus were the same as those in Experiment 1, except that only the prime dura-tion of 50 msec was used. The participants saw all the 180 experi-mental trials in one block, after 16 practice trials.

ResultsCorrect RTs were averaged across participants after ex-

cluding outliers (RTs 1,500 msec, 0.09% of the data). Three items were excluded from the analysis because of high error rates. The results are presented in Table 4. An ANOVA was performed on the data, with prime type (translation, phonological, or unrelated) and level of form overlap (high, low, or none) as independent variables. As in Experiment 1, list was included as a between- participants factor in order to extract any variance due to this variable.

Table 3 Sample Stimuli and Degree of Prime–Target Phonological Overlap for the

Different Priming Conditions (Translation, Phonological, and Unrelated) and Three Types of Targets (High-Overlap Cognates, Low-Overlap Cognates, and Noncognates) Tested in Experiment 2

Primes

Phonemic PhonemicType of Target Targets Translation Overlap Phonological Overlap Unrelated

Words

Cognates, high overlap métro μετρό 4.23 phonemes μετρώ 3.97 phonemes ρύζια/ / (92.6%) / / (85%) / /

(count) (rice)

Cognates, low overlap chimie χημεία 2.2 phonemes σημεία 1.97 phonemes καλάμι(chemistry) / / (55.2%) / / (50%) / /

(points) (cane)

Noncognates erreur λάθος – κεριά – κήποι(error) / / / / / /

(candles) (gardens)

Nonwords

“Cognates,” high overlap diffon ντιφόν 4 phonemes ντιφόνι 4 phonemes σμέλας/ / (94%) / / (94%) / /

“Cognates,” low overlap drise δρίτσα 2.3 phonemes βρίτσα 2 phonemes γέριο/ / (55%) / / (50%) / /

“Noncognates” mértol δύπητο – μύνητο – ασσύς / / / / / /

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 943

There was a significant main effect of prime type [F1(2,54) 38.62, p .001; F2(2,168) 38.10, p .001], with targets preceded by a translation prime being responded to more quickly than those preceded by pho-nological and unrelated primes. The main effect of form overlap was significant [F1(2,54) 23.72, p .001; F2(2,84) 4.45, p .05], since cognate targets were responded to more quickly than noncognate targets. The interaction between these two factors failed to reach sig-nificance [F1(4,108) 2.15; F2(4,174) 1.93].

With respect to the hypotheses under study, it was criti-cal to test the partial interactions between prime type and level of form overlap, pitting translation primes against phonologically related primes, on the one hand, and translation primes against unrelated primes, on the other. The partial interaction between prime type and level of form overlap was significant when the facilitation was estimated relative to the unrelated condition [F1(2,54) 5.23, p .01; F2(2,84) 3.43, p .05] but was not sig-nificant when it was estimated relative to the phonological control (both Fs 1).

Planned pairwise comparisons showed that for the high-overlap cognates, the difference between the translation and the unrelated conditions was significant [F1(1,27) 65.50, p .001; F2(1,29) 97.95, p .001], as well as the difference between the translation and the phonologi-cal conditions [F1(1,27) 25.62, p .001; F2(1,29) 13.88, p .001]. These differences were also significant for the low-overlap cognates [F1(1,27) 55.87, p .001; F2(1,29) 15.88, p .001, and F1(1,27) 21.07, p .001; F2(1,29) 15.92, p .001, respectively]. Priming by noncognate translations was also significant when as-sessed relative to the phonological condition [F1(1,27) 9.20, p .01; F2(1,26) 21.00, p .001], as well as to the unrelated condition [F1(1,27) 6.18, p .05; F2(1,26) 11.50, p .01]. The error analysis for word targets showed a significant effect of form relatedness [F1(2,54) 8.14, p .001; F2 1], with the participants making more errors to noncognate targets than to cognate targets.

The RT analysis for nonword targets showed no sig-nificant main effects or interaction. The error analysis for nonwords yielded a significant main effect of form relat-

edness in the analysis by participants [F1(2,54) 8.54, p .001; F2(2,84) 2.80]. The greater the phonological overlap between the prime and the nonword target, the more errors the participants made.

DiscussionThe results of Experiment 2 corroborate the cross-

script masked priming results of Gollan et al., (1997) with primes in L1 and targets in L2. Like Gollan et al., we found significant priming from noncognates and a larger effect of cognate primes when measured against an unre-lated prime condition. In their Experiment 1, Gollan et al. observed a 53-msec effect for cognates and a 36-msec ef-fect for noncognates. In Experiment 2 of the present study, the corresponding values were 55 msec for high-overlap cognates and 23 msec for noncognates (for average RTs and error rates in the same range as those in Gollan et al.’s study). Likewise, the 38-msec effect of high-overlap cog-nate primes, measured against phonological controls in Experiment 2, replicated the 33-msec effect obtained at the same prime duration in Experiment 1 of the present study.

The critical result of Experiment 2 concerns the con-trasting pattern of translation priming effects when these are measured against an unrelated baseline or against pho-nologically related controls. When the effects of transla-tion priming are evaluated against an unrelated prime condition, the degree of form overlap across translation equivalents significantly affects the amount of priming. However, when the baseline condition is matched in terms of form overlap to the translation prime condition, form overlap no longer affects translation priming. In other words, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that transla-tion priming effects reflect the contribution of two sepa-rate mechanisms: one sensitive to semantic overlap across prime and target, and the other sensitive to form overlap. Thus, according to these results, cognates may not have any special representational status, relative to noncognate translations. The cognate advantage could be due simply to the additional form priming generated by these stimuli.

However, there is one aspect of the results of Experi-ment 2 that raises some concern about the validity of the conclusions above. This concerns the unexpected numeri-

Table 4 Reaction Times (RTs, in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors for Lexical Decisions

to Targets in the Translation, Phonological, and Unrelated Prime Conditions in Experiment 2 (50-msec Prime Duration), With Net Priming Effects Relative to the Phonological and

the Unrelated Prime Conditions

Translation (T) Phonological (P) Unrelated (U) Net Priming Effects

RT Error RT Error RT Error P T U T

Words

Cognates, high overlap 610 5.67 648 4.33 665 6.33 38 55Cognates, low overlap 612 4.00 658 4.33 657 5.67 46 45Noncognates 661 8.89 697 8.52 684 10.00 36 23

Nonwords

Cognates, high overlap 737 10.67 736 13.00 742 9.67 1 5Cognates, low overlap 730 7.00 743 6.33 736 5.67 13 6Noncognates 746 5.33 730 8.00 735 9.00 16 11

944 VOGA AND GRAINGER

cal difference (13 msec) between the unrelated prime and the phonological control prime conditions for noncognate targets. This could be due to a speed–accuracy trade-off that can be seen in Table 4. Nevertheless, we decided to run a further experiment in order to clarify this issue. Ex-periment 3 was designed as a stronger test of the effects of form overlap on translation priming by including only high-overlap cognate words and noncognate words. This experiment also allowed us to improve the prime stimuli used for unrelated and phonological controls to noncog-nate targets.

EXPERIMENT 3

MethodParticipants. Thirty Greek–French bilinguals participated in

the study. These bilinguals were from the same pool as those who had participated in Experiments 1 and 2 and presented the same characteristics.

Stimuli and Design. Sixty words and 60 nonwords were used as French language (L2) targets, as in the previous experiments. These included 30 French–Greek cognates, four to seven letters long (M 5.3 letters), with an average frequency of 21.5 occurrences per mil-lion (New et al., 2001), and 30 noncognates, three to seven letters long (M 5.3 letters), with an average frequency of 22.3 occur-rences per million (New et al., 2001). Each French target was primed by three types of Greek prime: its translation equivalent (cognate or noncognate prime), an unrelated prime, and a phonologically related prime (see Table 5 for examples). Presentation conditions were iden-tical to those in the previous experiments (i.e., nominative singular and lowercase letters). The different prime conditions were matched for printed frequency, and phonological control primes were matched to the translation primes in terms of the number of shared phonemes. The French word targets and the corresponding Greek prime stimuli are shown in Appendix C. Sixty nonwords were created respecting the phonotactic constraints of French and were matched for length with the real words. The primes for nonword targets matched the primes for word targets in terms of length and phonological overlap and were constructed so as to mimic the cognate and phonological primes used for word targets. Three experimental lists were created by rotating the targets across the three priming conditions, using a Latin-square design, so that each target appeared only once for a given participant but was tested in all the priming conditions across participants.

Procedure and Apparatus. The procedure and apparatus were the same as those in Experiment 2.

ResultsCorrect RTs were averaged across participants after

excluding outliers (RTs 1,500 msec, 0.86% of the data). The results are presented in Table 6. An ANOVA was performed on the data, with prime type (translation, phonological, or unrelated) and cognate status (cognate or noncognate) as independent variables. As in Experiments 1 and 2, list was included as a between-participants factor in order to extract any variance due to this variable.

There was a significant main effect of prime type [F1(2,54) 18.04, p .001; F2(2,116) 16.51, p .001], with targets preceded by a related prime being responded to more quickly than those preceded by un-related primes. The main effect of form overlap was significant [F1(1,27) 168.79, p .001; F2(1,58) 35.56, p .001], since cognate targets were responded to more quickly than noncognate targets. The interaction between these two factors was significant only by items [F1(2,54) 2.58, p .10; F2(2,116) 3.19, p .05]. The partial interaction between prime type and level of form overlap was significant by items when the facili-tation was estimated relative to the unrelated condition [F1(1,29) 3.32, p .10; F2(1,58) 4.04, p .05] but was not significant when it was estimated relative to the phonological control (both Fs 1).

Planned pairwise comparisons showed that for the cognates, the difference between the translation and the unrelated conditions was significant [F1(1,27) 50.62, p .001; F2(1,29) 26.32, p .001], as well as the dif-ference between the translation and the phonological con-ditions [F1(1,27) 9.86, p .01; F2(1,29) 9.67, p .01]. These differences were also significant for noncog-nates [F1(1,27) 4.61, p .05; F2(1,29) 4.75, p .05, and F1(1,27) 5.52, p .05; F2(1,29) 9.67, p .05, respectively]. The error analysis for word targets showed a significant effect of form relatedness [F1(1,27) 19.43, p .001; F2 1], with the participants making more er-

Table 5 Sample Stimuli and Degree of Prime–Target Phonological Overlap for the Different Priming

Conditions (Translation, Phonological, and Unrelated) and Two Types of Target (High-Overlap Cognates and Noncognates) Tested in Experiment 3

Primes

Phonemic PhonemicType of Target Targets Translation Overlap Phonological Overlap Unrelated

Words

Cognates piano πιάνο 4.33 phonemes πιάνω 3.9 phonemes τζάκι/ / (92%) / / (85.43%) / /

(grasp) (chimney)

Noncognates cadeau δώρο – τζάμια – ζήτημα(present) / / / / / /

(glasses) (issue)

Nonwords

“Cognates” arpal αρπάλιο 4 phonemes υρπάλιο 4 phonemes λαξιό/ / (94%) / / (94%) / /

“Noncognates” ondue εδραί – σάρην – ξίωμα / / / / / /

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 945

rors to noncognate targets than to cognate targets. The RT analysis for nonword targets showed no significant main effects or interaction. There were no significant effects in the error analysis to nonword targets.

DiscussionThe results of Experiment 3 perfectly replicated those

of Experiment 2, showing a clear difference in the magni-tude of translation priming effects as a function of cognate status when the baseline was an unrelated prime, but no such difference when the baseline was matched to transla-tion primes in terms of form overlap with targets. These results also help clarify one potential problem with the results of Experiment 2, the observed numerical differ-ence between the phonological controls and the unrelated primes for the noncognate condition. This 13-msec differ-ence was reduced to 5 msec in Experiment 3.

The results of Experiments 2 and 3 are not in line with the cross-script translation priming effects reported by Kim and Davis (2003). These authors reported equivalent amounts of cognate and noncognate priming in Korean–English bilinguals in experimental conditions very similar to those in the present study. In noting the discrepancy be-tween their results and those in Gollan et al. (1997), Kim and Davis suggested that the relatively high frequency of their stimuli (average of 318 per million for the English words), as compared with those tested by Gollan et al., might be one factor. Given that the frequencies of our French target words were more in the range of those tested by Gollan et al., this remains one possible explanation to be tested in future experimentation.

COMBINED ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3

Given that the central hypothesis tested in Experiments 2 and 3 concerns a difference in priming effect size as a function of cognate status, we decided to perform an ANOVA on the effect sizes, calculated by participant and by item. The effect sizes are the differences between the translation prime condition and the unrelated prime condi-tion, on the one hand, and between the translation prime and the phonological prime condition, on the other. The factors were, therefore, cognate status (cognate or noncog-nate) and type of baseline (unrelated or phonological). The

prediction now involves a two-way interaction between cognate status and type of baseline, with a significant ef-fect of cognate status with the unrelated baseline and no effect of cognate status with a phonological baseline.

We conducted a combined analysis on the effect sizes of Experiments 2 and 3, after removing the data for the low-overlap cognates from Experiment 2. Experiment was a between-participants factor, and cognate status and type of baseline were within-participants factors. There was a significant main effect of cognate status in the by-items analysis [F1(1,58) 2.83; F2(1,113) 3.72, p .06] and no effect of type of baseline or experiment [F1(1,58) 1.11; F2(1,113) 1.83, and F1 1, F2(1,113) 1.53, respectively]. Most important, the critical interaction between cognate status and type of baseline was highly significant [F1(1,58) 7.25, p .01; F2(1,113) 11.25, p .01], and there was no triple interaction (both Fs 1). As was predicted, the effect of cognate status was significant when measured against the unrelated baseline [F1(1,58) 7.91, p .01; F2(1,113) 12.72, p .001] and was not significant when measured against the pho-nological baseline (both Fs 1).

The results of this complementary analysis therefore consolidate the conclusions drawn on the basis of the sep-arate analyses performed for each experiment. It is very clear that the cognate advantage in masked translation priming depends critically on the type of baseline used to measure the priming effect. When control primes are matched to the translation primes in terms of their pho-nological overlap with targets, cognate status no longer confers a significant advantage.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In the experiments reported here, Greek–French ma-terials and the masked priming technique were used to investigate how different degrees of form relatedness across translation equivalents influence translation prim-ing effects. Experiment 1 compared priming from cognate translation primes with that from cross-language morpho-logically related primes. We found that the morphological facilitation induced by Greek (L1) primes on French (L2) targets, measured relative to a phonological control condi-tion, appeared later and was of smaller magnitude than the cognate priming effect. In Experiments 2 and 3, we exam-

Table 6 Reaction Times (RTs, in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors for Lexical Decisions to Targets in the Translation, Phonological, and Unrelated Prime

Conditions in Experiment 3 (50-msec Prime Duration), With Net Priming Effects Relative to the Phonological and the Unrelated Prime Conditions

Translation (T) Phonological (P) Unrelated (U) Net Priming Effects

RT Error RT Error RT Error P T U T

Words

Cognates 587 1.33 613 2.67 635 1.33 26 48Noncognates 669 5.67 696 8.00 691 7.33 27 22

Nonwords

Cognates 767 10.67 778 8.33 784 10.67 11 17Noncognates 772 6.67 765 7.67 773 8.00 7 1

946 VOGA AND GRAINGER

ined how level of form overlap (phonological overlap in the present study, given the different scripts) influences translation priming. Priming effects from high- and low-overlap cognates, as well as noncognate translation primes, were evaluated relative to both phonologically related and unrelated control primes. When measured against the un-related baseline, the typical cognate advantage was ob-served, with priming effects increasing as a function of amount of form overlap across translation equivalents. On the other hand, when measured against the phonologically related baseline, translation priming effects did not vary as a function of form overlap. The cognate advantage in masked translation priming therefore depends on the type of baseline used to measure translation priming effects.

Our experiments were designed to test two different ex-planations of the cognate advantage in masked translation priming (the fact that cognate translations typically show stronger priming than do noncognate translations). Experi-ment 1 was designed to test a morphological explanation of the cognate advantage, whereas Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to test a form overlap explanation of the advantage. According to the morphological account of the cognate ad-vantage, cognate translation equivalents share a common language-independent morphemic representation, whereas noncognates do not have such a common morphemic repre-sentation. The cognate advantage would, therefore, be due to the common, language-independent morphemic rep-resentation’s mediating priming effects in the former. On the basis of this analysis, we predicted that cross-language morphological priming should show the same pattern as cognate priming (see Figure 1). Experiment 1 showed that this was not the case, thus allowing us to reject the morpho-logical account of the cognate advantage.

According to the form overlap account of the cognate advantage, cognate translation primes show stronger ef-fects than do noncognate translation primes because they combine both a semantic priming component that is com-mon to all types of translation primes and a form prim-ing component that is specific to cognate translations (see Figure 2; see Bowers et al., 2000, for a similar proposal). This can account for the cognate advantage, given that in practically all prior investigations of cognate priming, unrelated primes were used as the baseline condition. This account predicted that the cognate advantage should dis-appear when the effects of translation primes are measured relative to a form-related prime. Experiments 2 and 3 con-firmed this prediction, thus providing evidence in favor of the form overlap account of the cognate advantage.

Thus, the results of the present study suggest that cog-nates do not have any special representational status in a bilingual’s mental lexicon. Translation primes (cognates and noncognates alike) produce facilitation via their shared meaning representation. The fact that Grainger and Frenck-Mestre (1998) found stronger translation priming in a semantic categorization task than in the lexical deci-sion task supports a semantic interpretation of translation priming effects (see Finkbeiner et al., 2004, for similar conclusions). On top of this common semantic-priming component, cognate primes add a form-priming compo-nent to create the observed cognate advantage over non-

cognates. When priming is measured against an unrelated baseline, the effects of form priming and semantic prim-ing combine to produce the observed cognate advantage.

The present study replicated the cross-script noncognate priming effect previously reported by Gollan et al. (1997). However, prior research has systematically failed to show same-script translation priming in similar conditions with the lexical decision task (de Groot & Nas, 1991; Grainger & Frenck-Mestre, 1998). Gollan et al. argued that the script change across primes and targets allowed improved prime processing, since the lexical processor could exclusively consider words from the language indicated by the script. This account has difficulty in explaining why switching to a semantic categorization task allowed Grainger and Frenck-Mestre to obtain robust noncognate priming. A simple explanation can be given within the framework of the bilingual interactive activation (BIA) model (Grainger & Dijkstra, 1992; van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998), if one assumes that response generation is based primarily on activation in semantic representations when semantic categorization is performed, and primarily on word form representations when lexical decision is per-formed (Grainger & Jacobs, 1996). In the BIA framework, when languages share the same script, orthographic rep-resentations compete across languages in the same way as they do within a language. With different scripts, on the other hand, we hypothesize that orthographic represen-tations do not compete across languages, since they can

Figure 2. Hypothetical pattern of activation generated in whole-word orthographic representations (lowercase letters) and semantic representations (symbols) following presentation of a prime word (uppercase letters) to an English–French (left-hand panel) and an English–Greek (right-hand panel) bilingual. Ex-citatory connections are indicated by lines with arrows, and in-hibitory connections by lines with full circles. In the upper panel, prime words are noncognates, and in the lower panel, the primes are cognates. Amount of facilitation in the subsequent processing of the second-language translation equivalent in a lexical decision task is given by the combination of positive and negative inputs to the corresponding whole-word orthographic representation.

£€$

RICH

rich riche

+

–

+

*!%

TREE

tree arbre

+

–

?=§

CANNON

cannon

+

*!%

TREE

tree

+

/ /+

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 947

never be directly coactivated by a printed word (assuming sufficient visual dissimilarity across the two scripts). It is the lateral inhibitory connections between whole-word orthographic representations within and across languages, and independently of whether words are translates or not, that explains the absence of noncognate translation prim-ing effects in the lexical decision task (see Kim & Davis, 2003, for a similar suggestion).

Figure 2 describes the implications of this theorizing for cognate and noncognate translation priming with same and different scripts. The figure describes hypothetical whole-word and semantic activation following presenta-tion of a prime word that is either a cognate or a non-cognate, and in cross-script and same-script conditions. Activation of the whole-word orthographic representation of the prime’s translation equivalent is a function of the amount of bottom-up (shared form) and top-down (shared meaning) facilitation, plus within-level lateral inhibition. When response readout is principally at the level of whole-word orthographic representations, facilitation is maximal for cross-script cognates (since these do not suffer from lateral inhibition), intermediate for same-script cognates and cross-script noncognates, and lowest for same-script noncognates. This therefore explains both the cognate ad-vantage when measured against an unrelated prime con-dition and the fact that noncognate priming is stronger in cross-script conditions than in same-script conditions in the lexical decision task.

There is one other factor that has been shown to influ-ence the size of translation priming effects in masked prim-ing, and that is whether the prime stimuli are in L1 or L2. Stronger translation priming is obtained when the primes are in L1 and the targets in L2 than in the reverse situa-tion (Gollan et al., 1997). In the BIA framework, language dominance will affect the amount of activation generated by a briefly presented prime stimulus, hence modulating the size of priming effects. This fits with the results of Gollan et al. (1997) and of Finkbeiner et al. (2004), who failed to find cross-script translation priming from L2 to L1 with the lexical decision task. However, Finkbeiner et al. did find significant cross-script priming from L2 to L1 when the task was semantic categorization. Semantic categorization requires response readout at the level of se-mantic representations, and therefore, priming can arise from feed-forward mechanisms alone. This would allow priming effects to arise with less input from the prime stimuli than when feedback is necessary to drive the prim-ing effect. Finally, the fact that Gollan et al. failed to find enhanced priming for cognates, relative to noncognates, when primes were in L2 can be attributed to the slower en-coding of phonological information from L2 primes. Thus, in masked priming, we argue that L2 primes can generate sufficient semantic activation to facilitate subsequent tar-get processing in a semantic categorization task, but not in a lexical decision task, and that no cognate advantage is observed relative to unrelated control primes, because of insufficient phonological activation from L2 primes.

Finally, it remains to be explained why cognate trans-lations produced significantly greater priming than did cross-language morphological primes in Experiment 1.

Like cognate primes, morphologically related primes share meaning and form with targets, and in Experiment 1 the level of form overlap (number of phonemes shared by the prime and the target) was matched for the cognate and the morphological prime conditions. However, although the number of phonemes shared by the prime and the tar-get was matched across these two priming conditions, the morphological primes did contain additional phonemes (their suffixes) that were not present in the target words, and the suffixes also conveyed meaning that was not con-veyed by the corresponding targets. It is this mismatching phonological and semantic information that can account for the cognate advantage over morphologically related primes. Furthermore, as was pointed out in the discussion of Experiment 1, the absence of morphological priming at 50-msec prime durations suggests that prelexical morpho-logical decomposition (Longtin et al., 2003; Rastle et al., 2004) does not survive a change in script. The cross-script morphological priming found at 66-msec prime durations is best captured by a supralexical account of morphologi-cal representation (Giraudo & Grainger, 2001), according to which whole-word form representations activate higher level, amodal morphemic representations that are shared across languages and scripts. In order to provide a unitary account of cognate and morphological priming effects, these amodal morphemic representations could be part of a more general semantic network (see De Jong, Schreuder, & Baayen, 2003).

AUTHOR NOTE

We are grateful to the staff of the Greek department of Paul Valéry University, Montpellier, France, and especially to the director, Professor Masson, for having arranged the testing of participants in the department. Correspondence concerning this work can be addressed to J. Grainger, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, Université de Provence, 3 pl. Vic-tor Hugo, 13331 Marseille, France (e-mail: grainger@up.univ-mrs.fr).

REFERENCES

Bowers, J. S., Mimouni, Z., & Arguin, M. (2000). Orthography plays a critical role in cognate priming: Evidence from French/English and Arabic/French cognates. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1289-1296.

Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., & Van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 137-148.

Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between mean-ing and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexi-cal representation: The status of Spanish–English cognates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 367-393.

de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Or-thography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 389-412). Am-sterdam: North-Holland.

de Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Mem-ory & Language, 30, 90-123.

De Jong, N., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Morphologi-cal resonance in the mental lexicon. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 65-88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2005). Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language & Cognitive Processes, 20, 75-114.

948 VOGA AND GRAINGER

Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recogni-tion of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 496-518.

Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1098-1116.

Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 1-22.

Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 680-698.

Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1991). The density constraint on form-priming in the naming task: Interference effects from a masked prime. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 1-25.

Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.

Frost, R., Ahissar, M., Gotesman, R., & Tayeb, S. (2003). Are phono-logical effects fragile? The effect of luminance and exposure duration on form priming and phonological priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 346-378.

Frost, R., Forster, K., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1-28.

Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evi-dence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 127-131.

Gollan, T., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1122-1139.

Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 370-384.

Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 207-220). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Grainger, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by trans-lation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language & Cognitive Processes, 13, 601-623.

Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565.

Jacobs, A. M., Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1995). The incremental priming technique: A method for determining within-condition prim-ing effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1101-1110.

Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script transla-tion and phonological priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 484-499.

Kirsner, K., Lalor, E., & Hird, K. (1993). The bilingual lexicon: Exer-cise, meaning and morphology. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 215-248). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lalor, E., & Kirsner, K. (2001). The representation of “false cognates” in the bilingual lexicon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 552-559.

Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and inter-lingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32, 533-550.

Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., & Michel, M. C. (2004). Three languages,

one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language & Cognitive Processes, 19, 585-611.

Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological prim-ing without morphological relationship. Language & Cognitive Pro-cesses, 18, 313-334.

New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE. L’Année Psychologique, 101, 447-462.

Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recog-nition: A time-course study. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 507-537.

Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recogni-tion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090-1098.

Sánchez-Casas, R. M., Davis, C. W., & García-Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate dis-tinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 293-310.

Sánchez-Casas, R. M., & García-Albea, J. E. (2005). The represen-tation of cognate and noncognate words in bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized as a special kind of morphological relation? In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilin-gualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 226-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647.

van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Ortho-graphic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 458-483.

van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Shared neighborhood effects in masked orthographic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 96-101.

Williams, J. N. (1994). The relationship between word meanings in the first and second language: Evidence for a common, but re-stricted, semantic code. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 195-220.

NOTES

1. Accidental form overlap gives rise to cross-language homographs with no shared meaning (e.g., four, which means oven in French). Also, some authors have defined cognates as having identical orthography (e.g., table, which has the same spelling in French and English). This is clearly not a viable definition for languages with different scripts.

2. There is, however, an asymmetry in translation priming effects observed using the lexical decision task, with stronger priming arising when primes are presented in L1 and targets in L2 (Finkbeiner et al., 2004; Gollan et al., 1997). This could explain why some studies have reported robust noncognate priming in same-script languages, whereas others have not. For example, Williams (1994) found significant effects of noncognate translation priming in the lexical decision task with L1 primes and L2 targets, whereas Grainger and Frenck-Mestre (1998) did not find significant priming with similar stimuli and the same task but with primes in L2 and targets in L1.

3. We are aware of the fact that stimulus luminance is just as important as stimulus duration in driving priming effects (Frost, Ahissar, Gotes-man, & Tayeb, 2003; Jacobs et al., 1995). Our analysis of the effects of prime duration is valid for a constant prime luminance that approximates typical viewing conditions on a computer screen.

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 949

APPENDIX A French Word Targets and Corresponding

Greek Prime Stimuli in Experiment 1

Target Cognate Morphological Phonological

barque βάρκα βαρκούλα μάρκαtype τύπος τυπικό ρύποςrôle ρόλος ρολάκι ρολόpiano πιάνο πιανίστα πιάνωatome άτομο ατομικό άτιμοcarte κάρτα καρτούλα τάρταdouche ντους ντουζάκι νουςlime λίμα λιμάρω κύμαcône κώνος κωνικό φόνοςsalon σαλόνι σαλόνια μαλώνειmythe μύθος μυθικό ζύθοςmagie μαγεία μαγικό μαζίbotte μπότα μποτίνι μπόραjambon ζαμπόν ζαμπόνια ταμπόνcritique κριτική κριτικός κλητικήchimie χημεία χημικό σημείαforme φόρμα φορμάρω νόρμαtrain τρένο τρενάκι φρένοsoupe σούπα σουπίτσα κούπαcanon κανόνι κανονιά κανόναcadre κάδρο καδράκι κέδροmanie μανία μανιακό μαφίαasthme άσθμα άσθματα άσμαsandale σανδάλι σανδάλια σκανδάληballe μπάλα μπαλάκι μπάνταclimat κλίμα κλίματα κλήμαcolle κόλλα κολλάω φόλαvilla βίλλα βιλάρα μήλαpizza πίτσα πιτσαρία πίσσαmétal μέταλο μεταλικό πέταλοvase βάζο βαζάκι βάζωporte πόρτα πορτούλα χόρταcentre κέντρο κεντρικό δέντροcrème κρέμα κρεμούλα κρίμαcycle κύκλος κυκλικό κούκλοςrisque ρίσκο ρισκάρω δίσκοtactique τακτική τακτοποιώ πρακτικήarôme άρωμα αρώματα σάρωμαcarafe καράφα καραφάκι καράφλαlampe λάμπα λαμπίτσα γάμπαmasque μάσκα μασκαρά λάσκαastre άστρο αστρικός άσπροballon μπαλόνι μπαλόνια μπαλώνωgomme γόμα γομίτσα κόμμαthème θέμα θεματικό θύμα

(Continued on next page)

950 VOGA AND GRAINGER

APPENDIX B French Word Targets and Corresponding

Greek Prime Stimuli in Experiment 2

Target Translation Phonological Unrelated

Cognates High Overlapmétro μετρό μετρώ ψωμιάpanneau πανό πάνω έκφρασηstyle στυλ στήλη χρυσήmoteur μοτέρ μοτέλ φαγητάjambon ζαμπόν ταμπόν κλειδίkilo κιλό κοίλο αέραcafé καφέ σκάφες μήλοmenu μενού μένω είδηpizza πίτσα πίσσα σωρόςcacao κακάο κακό χώροςclimat κλίμα κλήμα ειρήνηtaxi ταξί τάξη νερόpastel παστέλ παστέλι δύναμηbol μπολ μπόλι ώραcoupe κουπ κούπα έλαταsalami σαλάμι καλάμι χρυσόςvilla βίλλα μήλα ευθύςmaillot μαγιό μαγιά ρύπανσηtarot ταρό θαρρώ φωνέςrepos ρεπό ρέπω ζουμίpiano πιάνο πιάνω ευρύςcollier κολλιέ κολλιέ μάγουλοstylo στυλό στύλο ρύζιαbloc μπλοκ μπλόκο κύμαdiva ντίβα ντιβάνι ζώοtango τανγκό μάνγκο γεύσηtram τραμ τρέμω φωνήcinéma σινεμά συνάμα πυρετόmassage μασάζ μασάς γνώσειςprime πριμ πριν φύλλο

Cognates Low Overlapséisme σεισμός συρμός κόκοραςlin λινό λύνω ωμήfrein φρένο τρένο σάλοςfour φούρνος φουρό σάκαthème θέμα τάμα άδειαpoète ποιητής ποιότης σκηνήthéâtre θέατρο θέρετρο μολύβιαcentre κέντρο δέντρο μαλακόméthode μέθοδος μέτωπο σκληρόςjambe γάμπα λάμπα τέχνηallergie αλλεργία ανεργία μηχάνημαcube κύβος κάβος ήθοςchimie χημεία σημεία κύκλοςtrain τρένο τρανό όγκοςstade στάδιο στάνη βρώμαpatrie πατρίδα πάτερ τούβλοidée ιδέα είδε φώταepoque εποχή έπος γλώσσαphrase φράση φτάσει εθνικόmusée μουσείο μούσι γάμοςdilemme δίλημμα φίλημα μαθητήςliqueur λικέρ λύκος σαγόνιαwagon βαγόνι βαστώ ηθικόpôle πόλος πόλης ζύμηmythe μύθος μίσος βέλοςrythme ρυθμός σεισμός γάλαταcrise κρίση κρήνη ηδονήtype τύπος τίμα ζάρι

CROSS-SCRIPT TRANSLATION PRIMING 951

APPENDIX B (Continued)

Target Translation Phonological Unrelated

rôle ρόλος ρολό αυγάmagie μαγεία μαζί νόμος

Noncognatessoleil ήλιος άσυλο κουβάςpoireau πράσο μασχάλη καρέκλαlierre κισσός είδηση βρύσηpleur κλάμα σπίτι κρέαςdune λόφος μύγα τύχηprénom όνομα μήνυμα ζήτημαjardin κήπος γιλέκο αγκάληchair σάρκα μοίρα πάνταbœuf βόδι δίσκο γούριpoule κότα άνεμο χέριαseiche καλαμάρι μητρώο κοινόςsoie μετάξι ψέμα πάσοherbe χόρτο έφηβο λοφίοtonton θείος φασόλι μελάνιjus χυμός λες σανgâteau γλυκό έξοδο χώματαimpôt φόρος κεριά κήποςerreur λάθος ύπνος ικανόςjupe φούστα λάδι κόποpin πεύκο πες εώςage ηλικία όσο επίvoyance μαντεία πηρούνι αγγούριastuce κόλπο όργανο φιάλεςvirage στροφή δάφνες αγγάληboisson ποτό σταφύλι άγγελμαchêne οξυά πλάτη αγοράgrain σπόρος μέρος κλαδίrepas γεύμα κουλό χρήμαcadeau δώρο βράχος γόνατοnœud κόμπος ψαριά γνώση

(Continued on next page)

952 VOGA AND GRAINGER

APPENDIX C French Word Targets and Corresponding

Greek Prime Stimuli in Experiment 3

Target Translation Phonological Unrelated

Cognatesmétro μετρό μετρώ πιάτοpanneau πανό πάνω σκούφοςstyle στυλ στήλη υγείαmanie μανία μαφία έλατοsalon σαλόνι σαγόνι λεπτόkilo κιλό κοίλο δόξαstylo στυλό στύλοs κρίμαballon μπαλόνι μπαλώνει φρούτοpizza πίτσα πίσσα φόροςboutique μπουτίκ μπούτι σταγόνεςclimat κλίμα κλήμα πώλησηtaxi τάξη τάξη μήλοpastel παστέλ παστέλι λάχανοcave κάβα κάβοs ήχοςcoupe κούπα κούπα πράξηsalami σαλάμι καλάμι σκεύοςvilla βίλλα βήμα σοφόςmoteur μοτέρ μοτέλ καπέλοmaillot μαγιό μαγιά φόρτωμαrobot ρομπότ ρόμπα λαγόςpiano πιάνο πιάνω τζάκιpiscine πισίνα πισινό κούκλεςcafé καφές κουφές κρύοbloc μπλόκο μπλόκο ρόδαdiva ντίβα ντιβάνι ρόδιtango τανγκό μάνγκο σωστήsoupe σούπα σουπιά μπίραcinéma σινεμά συνάμα ζάχαρηmassage μασάζ μασάς πίθηκοςbotte μπότα μπόρα ξανθή

Noncognatesécran οθόνη μάχες στολήboisson ποτό πλαστός αγγούριerreur λάθος όροφος καράβιgâteau γλυκό σανίδα γόνατοmiette ψίχουλο λημέρι ρίγανηcoin γωνία ρήμα νησίnœud κόμπος δότης κλήσηcigale τζιτζίκι παγόνι ένσημοmelon πεπόνι λούκι σάρκαcadeau δώρο ζήτημα τζάμιαjupe φούστα άγριο λάδιlac λίμνη ζώνη σήμαjus χυμός δόση ρύζιunion ένωση πάγος δήμοςordure σκουπίδι κουμπί στροφήprairie λιβάδι σπανάκι καμπάναaccident ατύχημα κουβέντα τραγούδιrepas γεύμα ύπνος κλαδίgrain σπόρος βράδυ ανάσαherbe χορτάρι θάυμα χείληbœuf βόδι δάφνη ταχύςmarteau σφυρί τρίγωνο κινητόςdette χρέος κεριά ρούμιsoie μετάξι ήττα λόφοtiroir συρτάρι σκεπές αμοιβήfleur λουλούδι τέρας μίσοςdeuil πένθος βλάβη έξοδοpage σελίδα ψιλά υγρόberger βοσκός πελάτη καλάθιcierge κερί κουβάς τροχιά

(Manuscript received July 6, 2004; revision accepted for publication May 12, 2006.)