ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (1): 14-23.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00014

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇


刘贵雄1,2, 贾永萍1, 王余娟3, 买合甫来提·坎吉1,*, 郭春彦2,*   

  1. 1 新疆师范大学教育科学学院心理系
    2 新疆师范大学心智发展与学习科学重点实验室, 乌鲁木齐 830017
    3 首都师范大学心理学院
  • 收稿日期:2018-01-03 发布日期:2018-11-26 出版日期:2019-01-25
  • 通讯作者: 买合甫来提·坎吉,郭春彦
  • 基金资助:
    * 国家自然科学基金资助(31671127);首都师范大学科技创新服务能力建设-基本科研业务费科研类(025185305000 /200);国家自然科学地区基金(31660283);博士科研启动基金(XJNUBS1707);博士科研创新基金(XJ107621710);心智发展与学习科学重点实验室基金项目(XJNUSYS072017B06)

The bilingual L2 advantage in associative recognition

LIU Guixiong1,2, JIA Yongping1, WANG Yujuan3, MAIHEFULAITI ·Kanji1,*, GUO Chunyan2,*   

  1. 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
  • Received:2018-01-03 Online:2018-11-26 Published:2019-01-25
  • Contact: MAIHEFULAITI ·Kanji,GUO Chunyan


研究使用ERPs技术, 考察了双语者在联结再认中是否存在第二语言记忆优势效应。实验要求被试完成维吾尔语(L1)和汉语(L2)两类“学习-测试”任务。学习阶段要求被试学习混合呈现的复合词和无关词, 测验阶段要求被试区分“旧”、“重组”或“新”词对。行为结果发现:(1)复合词中, L2的正确率高于L1, L2的反应时快于L1; 无关词中, L2的正确率与L1无显著差异, 但L2的反应时快于L1。(2) 在L2和L1中, 复合词的正确率均高于无关词, 反应时均快于无关词。ERPs结果发现:(1)在高整合条件下, L2仅诱发了FN400效应, L1诱发了FN400效应和LPC效应; 在低整合条件下, L2和L1都只诱发了LPC效应。(2)在时间进程上, L2和L1分别在650 ms和900 ms完成联结关系的提取。上述结果表明, 在高整合条件下, 双语者在联结再认中存在L2记忆优势。此外, 实验结果也从双语角度证明了, 整合编码能促进熟悉性在维吾尔语联结再认中发挥作用。本研究结果的实践意义在于, 为我国少数民族学生习得国家通用语言文字提供了认知神经科学依据。

关键词: 联结再认, 双语, 整合编码, 熟悉性, 回想


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.

Key words: associative recognition, bilingualism, unitization, familiarity, recollection