Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (1) : 14-23     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00014
Reports of Empirical Studies |
The bilingual L2 advantage in associative recognition
LIU Guixiong1,2,JIA Yongping1,WANG Yujuan3,MAIHEFULAITI ·Kanji1,*,GUO Chunyan2,*
1 Department of Psychology, Xinjiang Normal University, The Key Laboratory of Mental Development and Learning Science, Xinjiang Normal University, Urumqi 830017, China
2 Department of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing Key Laboratory of “Learning & Cognition”, Beijing 100048, China
3 Intellectual Property School of Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing 400054, China
Download: PDF(845 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info

Recent research has indicated that humans exhibit better item recognition when working with their second language (L2) than in their first (L1). Associative and item recognition are based on different retrieval information and retrieval processes, even though they share certain characteristics. In the present study, we investigated whether bilingual associative recognition performance was better in L2 than in L1. We asked participants to complete two study-test tasks that were presented in Chinese or Uygur, as appropriate. During the study phase, participants were instructed to remember either compound or unrelated word pairs. Participants were then asked to indicate whether word pairs were intact, rearranged, or new.
According to the dual-process model of recognition memory, recognition can be mediated by two functionally distinct processes known as familiarity and recollection. Familiarity is a subjective feeling of prior encounter associated with an early (300~500 ms) frontal old/new effect (FN400). Recollection provides access to detailed information about the prior occurrence of an item and its associated episodic context, which is reflected by a later (500~800 ms) left parietal old/new effect (LPC). Traditionally, most researchers have assumed that associative recognition depended only on recollection, but more and more researchers have suggested that familiarity could also support associative recognition under unitized encoding conditions.
In the present study, we manipulated levels of unitization (LOU) through semantic relations of word pairs. In the unitization condition (compound word pairs), two words can be processed as a single coherent entity or an object. In contrast, in the non-unitization condition (unrelated word pairs), two items can only be treated as two separate objects. The current experiment found (1) associative recognition was more rapid in L2 than in L1 for both compound and unrelated word pairs, and the accuracy of associative recognition was higher in L2 for compound word pairs but equal for unrelated word pairs; and (2) associative recognition was better for compound than for unrelated word pairs both in L2 and in L1. The event-related potentials (ERPs) showed that in the unitization condition, recognition in L1 elicited both FN400 and LPC effects, indicating the unitization effect kept consistency in different language. However, recognition in L2 only elicited the FN400 effect. In addition, participants accomplished associative recognition at a time of 650 ms in L2. However, associative recognition was not completed until 900 ms in L1. This result pattern indicated that associative recognition in L2 can rely solely on familiarity. In the non-unitization condition, there was no FN400 effect, but the LPC effect occurred in both L2 and L1.
Together, these results indicate similar to item recognition, bilingual associative recognition is better in L2 than in L1 in the unitization condition. In addition, unitization increases the relative contribution of familiarity to subsequent associative retrieval. The practical significance of this study is that it provides a cognitive neuroscientific basis for promotion of the national common language in minority regions of China.

Keywords associative recognition      bilingualism      unitization      familiarity      recollection     
:  B842  
Corresponding Authors: ·Kanji MAIHEFULAITI,Chunyan GUO   
Issue Date: 26 November 2018
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Cite this article:   
LIU Guixiong,JIA Yongping,WANG Yujuan,MAIHEFULAITI ·Kanji,GUO Chunyan. The bilingual L2 advantage in associative recognition[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2019, 51(1): 14-23.
URL:     OR
[1] Ahmad F. N., & Hockley W.E. ( 2014). The role of familiarity in associative recognition of unitized compound word pairs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67( 12), 2301-2324.
[2] Buchler N. E.G., & Reder L.M . ( 2007). Modeling age-related memory deficits: A two-parameter solution. Psychology and Aging, 22( 1), 104-121.
[3] Clark S.E . ( 1992). Word frequency effects in associative and item recognition. Memory and Cognition, 20( 3), 231-243.
[4] Diana R. A., Reder L. M., Arndt J., & Park H . ( 2006). Models of recognition: A review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13( 1), 1-21.
[5] Diana R. A., Yonelinas A. P.,& Ranganath C . ( 2008). The effects of unitization on familiarity-based source memory: Testing a behavioral prediction derived from neuroimaging data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34( 4), 730-740.
[6] Francis W. S., & Strobach E. N ., ( 2013). The bilingual L2 advantage in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20( 6), 1296-1303.
[7] Gollan T. H., Montoya R. I., Cera C., & Sandoval T. C . ( 2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58( 3), 787-814.
[8] Graf P., & Schacter D.L . ( 1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15( 5), 930-940.
[9] Kamp S., Bader R., & Mecklinger A . ( 2016). The Effect of Unitizing Word Pairs on Recollection Versus
[10] Familiarity-Based Retrieval-Further Evidence from ERPs.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 12( 4), 168-177.
[11] Keppel G. ( 1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,Inc.
[12] Kriukova O., Bridger E., & Mecklinger A . ( 2013). Semantic relations differentially impact associative recognition memory: electrophysiological evidence. Brain and Cognition, 83( 1), 93-103.
[13] & Kuperman V., Van Dyke J.A . ( 2013). Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39( 3), 802-823.
[14] Liu H.S Cao F. ., ( 2016). L1 and L2 processing in bilingual brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language, 159, 60-73.
[15] MacLeod C.M., & Kampe K.E, . ( 1996). Word frequency effects on recall, recognition, and word fragment completion tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22( 1), 132-142.
[16] [ 毛新瑞, 徐慧芳, 郭春彦 . ( 2015). 双加工再认提取中的情绪记忆增强效应. 心理学报, 47( 9), 1111-1123.]
[17] Mandler, G. ( 1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87( 3), 252-271.
[18] Marian V., Blumenfeld H. K., & Kaushanskaya M . ( 2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50( 4), 940-967.
[19] McCarthy G., & Wood C.C . ( 1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical. Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 62( 3), 203-208.
[20] Reder L. M., Paynter C., Diana R. A., Ngiam J., & Dickison D . ( 2007). Experience is a double-edged sword: A computational model of the encoding/retrieval trade-off with familiarity. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 271-312.
[21] Rugg M.D., & Curran T. , ( 2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11( 6), 251-257.
[22] Schroeder S, Marian V . ( 2012). A bilingual advantage for episodic memory in older adults. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24( 5), 591-601.
[23] Snodgrass J.G., & Corwin J. ,( 1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117( 1), 34-50.
[24] Vilberg K. L., Moosavi R. F., & Rugg M. D . ( 2006). The relationship between electrophysiological correlates of recollection and amount of information retrieved. Brain Research, 1122( 1), 161-170.
[25] Yonelinas A.P . ( 2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46( 3), 441-517.
[26] Yonelinas A. P., Kroll N. E. A., Dobbins I. G., & Soltani M . ( 1999). Recognition memory for faces: When familiarity supports associative recognition judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6( 4), 654-661.
[27] Zheng Z. W., Li J., Xiao F. Q., Broster L. S., & Jiang Y . ( 2015 a). Electrophysiological evidence for the effects of unitization on associative recognition memory in older adults. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 121, 59-71.
[1] LEI Yi, XIA Qi, MO Zhifeng, LI Hong. The attention bias effect of infant face: The mechanism of cuteness and familiarity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(7): 811-822.
[2] LI Tingyu, LIU Li, LI Yilin, ZHU Liqi. Preschoolers' selective trust and belief revision in conflicting situation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(12): 1390-1399.
[3] JIA Yongping; ZHOU Chu; LI Lin; GUO Xiuyan. Recognition without cued recall (RWCR) phenomenon in Chinese characters: Effects of restudying and testing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(2): 111-120.
[4] YE Xiaohong; CHEN Youzhen; MENG Yingfang. Neural Processing of Recollection, Familiarity and Priming at Encoding[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(9): 1101-1110.
[5] MAO Xinrui; XU Huifang; GUO Chunyan. Emotional Memory Enhancement Effect in Dual-processing Recognition Retrieval[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(9): 1111-1123.
[6] WANG Pei;CHEN Li; XIE Yiwen; ZHANG Qin. The Effect of Familiarity and Compatibility on Mental Representation of the Stereotype in Compound Social Categories[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(3): 375-388.
[7] WU Binxing; ZHANG Zhijun; SUN Yusheng. Facial Familiarity Modulates the Interaction between Facial Gender and Emotional Expression[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(10): 1201-1212.
[8] CHEN Yongxiang; ZHU Liqi. Predictors of Action Picture Naming in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(1): 11-18.
[9] FAN Ruolin;MO Lei;XU Guiping;ZHONG Weifang;ZHOU Ying;YANG Li. Brain Potentials to Speech and Acoustic Sound Discrimination Uncover the Origin of Individual Differences in Perceiving the Sounds of A Second Language[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(5): 569-580.
[10] ZHANG Ji-Jia,ZHANG Feng-Ling.

The Asymmetric Effect of Bilingualism and Diglossia on Picture Naming and Picture Classification

[J]. , 2010, 42(04): 452-466.
[11] LU Hui-Jing,SU Yan-Jie. Relations between Judgment of Others’ Memory and Theory of Mind in Preschoolers[J]. , 2009, 41(02): 135-143.
[12] Zhang-Jijia,Kong Changfeng. Effects of Categorical Variables on Fale Recognition[J]. , 2006, 38(03): 324-332.
[13] Li Shouxin,Ding Zhaoye,Zhang Lizeng. THE EFFECT OF COGNITIVE STYLE AND CUE CHARACTERISTICS ON PROSPECTIVE MEMORY[J]. , 2005, 37(03): 320-327.
[14] Li-Rongbao,Peng-Danling,Guo-Taome. A STUDY ON CHINESE AND ENGLISH SEMANTIC ACCESS WITH ERP TECHNOLOGY[J]. , 2003, 35(03): 309-316.
[15] Guan Yijie,Fang Fuxi (Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101). THE EFFECT OF WORD LEARNING AGE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN'S VISUAL CHINESE CHARACTER RECOGNITION(II)[J]. , 2002, 34(01): 24-29.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech