HOW DO JAPANESE― DO出虹NANT

o77ο
Fθ
Pふ″
giθ,2003,46,255-267
CROSS‐ LINGuSTIC FALSE RECOGNITION:
HOW DO JAPANESE―
DO出虹NANT BILINGUALS PROCESS
TWO LANGUAGES:JAPANESE AND ENGLISH?
Yayoi KAWASAKI‐
MIYAJ11),ToIIloyoshi INOUE2)
′
ナ
る
なみαじ物A セ杏デ
′
【。ぁ夕c わ′
, t / a Pヵ
α
, ″D οs 力
34ゥ
中切
宅夕
alld
Hiroshi YメdWLAl)
ル
【oあ2 Cο′
雫、J?α ″
T h e p r e s e n t s t u d y 7 a p p h e d鉱 pt eh te t ef na tl ts te pm ae rm ao nりg m l o t h e t t n c t o n d
―
fOW Japanese
Seven守
hdependence―interdependence issuc of bilinguals
7e■years
university students who had leamed English for at least
se■ palticiPated in a
list‐
leaming experlment. Most of them 、 vere considered as Japanese,dominant
bilhguals.Twelve 15,word-list(180 words)were Successively presented.Each list
印V)WOuld be falsely reco即
】
zed
was consmcted so that a non‐
Presented word((小
vere presented in English
vere presented in J4Panese and the other six lists、
Sよ listsヽ
Httfofthe recogniton test words、vere presented m English and dle restin Japanese
恥 ese factors were onogonal.The results showed that,although ht rates were
alam rates of
htter when the hst ianguage and the test langutte mlched,false‐
CNWs were higher when he test ianttage was」 apanese These supponed the
unbalanced,independent storage model,whch、 vas proposed in the present study.
Key words: inter‐lingual faise recOgnition,list learning paradiglll,bilingual study
lists,false memoHes,word association
ln recent years a l狂
p r o c e s s i n g
processing of Ⅲ
岳e aIIIOllnt Of research has been conducted on language
e s p e c i a l l y
b即
y ablisl,血
o n
t h se t ic ch sa r oa fc tt he e五i
m e m o r y
i n v o l v e d
o diitrent ianguages. Historically,Inany investigations have attempted
o intemal lexicons(BialystOk,2001;Van
to reveal whether bilinguals possess one or前
Hell,&De Groot,1998)A lexicon is a sort of dictionatt h mind where we store ollr
vocabulary. The proponents ofdle one‐
lexicon viewy state that、汀ords ionl both languages
are orgalllzed into a single large lexicon(e.3・
,Yollng&Saegert,1966).The Others cia血
that bilinguals halreや vo lexicons(e.g.,Grottean,1995).
This con廿oversy has bccn a part oflnore general issue of functional independence一
interdependence h bilinttalS・ Paivio(1991)haS reviewed wide range of relevant
expe五ments that supported either ttnctional independcnce storage h〕
pOthesis or
interdependence storage hypothesiso On one hand,he took up the expenment ofLalnbert,
WVe express our appreciation to Dr
ヽ
4asanobu
T▲
kahashi for helpれ
i comments on an earliel draFl of this
nlanuscnpt
Corespondencc conccming this artide should be adaressed to Y守
oi Kawastti‐
M寸句i,Graduate School
ofHuman Sciences,Kobe Conege,Nishillomiya 662,8505,Japan(e‐ mお 1:y釣′
oi@i五S・
dt neづ
p).
255
h
t h e
256
KAWASAK」
―
lvEYAJI,INOLIE,&YAlv虫
IDgnatow,and ttauhalncr(1968)as onC WhiCh would supportthc indcpcndence hypothesis
that would posmlate separate storages forふ汀o intemal lexicons. They had presented
English_French,and Englishゃ Russian,bilingual participants ttvith wOrd lists in One or the
otller, or both, of their languages. The lists either contained wOrds iomぃ
/o distinct
ム
senlantic categories or they were not categorized. me substantial results Of their
ア
experilnent、入
ere that,、
vhen the items、材ere recalled,they、肝ere clustered based as lnuch on
the language categott as on semantic cate8o理
. They suggested tllerefore, that the
ガ
bilinguals had hA70 independent intemal lexicons.
On the other hand,Paivio(1991)alsO reviewed a series of memott experiments
conducted by Young and Saegert(1966),Lopez and Young(1974),and Others.The
investigations involved bilingual participants、
汀ho were required to learn and recall word
lists during h/o different experirnental sessions, Dlring the flrst session one language、
vas
used, and in the second session only the other language was used. A highiy positive
transfer ofleaming and、〃ord recallヽ
げere revealed、
材hen the same、汀ord list、
vas presented
again not only in the sane language but in the other language)during the second
expenlnental session. These sttdies appear to support an interdependent,or shared―
store
o f b i l i n gl uo ar ly . m e l ■
v i e w
It is really difflcult to conclude whether、
汀e should assllne an independent separate
storage or an interdependent shared storage in the memo甲
of bilinguals. It is probably
because all血 e sttdies conducted so far emp10yed vanous tteS Of bilinguals as heir
participants.It might be plausible ttat some kinds of bilttguals have dle interdependent
shared storage and that the other ttnds of bilinguals have the independent separate
s t o r a g e s . B i a l y s t o k ( 2 0 0 1 ) s u g g e s t e d t haagte sl amniggュ
ht be represented differently as a
血nction of being leamed flrst or second and that age of acquisition detelnines how the
second language would be represented. She also insisted that representations 、vould
change over time.恥ア
einreich(1968)distinguished ttFo l,pes of bilh〔ュュ
als into so―
called
coordinate bilillguals and compound bilinguals in his classic smdy. His cOntnbution in
proposing these categohes was that he atended to the relationship beh/een words and
concepts,and postulated tllis relationship renected important differences in the individual
bllingual experiences. More speciflcally,he explained that coordinate bilinguals hadい
汗o
different concepts to each equiwalent word in前
o languages. On the contta呼,compollnd
bilinguals were said to have only one concept to corresponding h汀
o equivalent words h
each language. Thus, it is not constructive to argue n7hat kittd of lexicOns bilinguals
generally htte without specitting the,pe Of bilinguals that is focused on in eac
investigation.
A n o t h e r l i m i t a t i o n i n d l e s Ot fu bⅢi l i n t t a l m e m o r y l s h a t t h e i n x / e s t i g a t o r s h N e n o t
necessarlly adopted new research methods which are obseNed in the rleld of ordinary
cottdve psychology, Normally the nlethods utilized by many researchers in this fleld are
rcgardcd as conventional mcmoり
cxpcdlnents such as ordha57 1ist_learning and word
associttiOn tasks(see Vall Hdi&De Groot,1998)。
Any ofthe apphcおle aPPrOaChes that
are available in the fleld of experilnental psychology of human memory and cognition
should be used to investigate the characteristics of memory struchre and inforlnation
processing in bilinguals if it is possible to do so. One reasonable tool could be the falsc
CROSS,LIIIGuSTIC FALSE RECOGRIITION
257
memott paraditt that is convcnicnt for cxploring not only tlle memott perfomance
itselfbut also the relationship betteen concepts for presented words and the critical non‐
■ pttadi部
that iS an ingenious thck ofthat
presented word(CNWり
( 1 9 9 5 ) r e v e a l e d a r e m t t k a b l e m a的d
g 高e o f
For exalnple,Roediger and McDemo■
false recall and false recognition in a list learning paradigm uthich Was modeled ater the
study ofDeese(1959).ThCtt participants were presented with 12 common words,such as
“
buter'',“food'',“eat"and“ sandwich''. All of these words were associates of CNW,
/sヽ
which、汀as“breadP'in ths case. They found thatthe C卜「内 Nere falsely recalled 40%of
vith an expanded
the tilne for the inunediate,iee recall tasks. In thetr second experilnent、
set of 15-word lists,the false recall rate was 55%.In additton,the recognition test was
caried out 5 11inutes aier the recall test. As a result,participants falsely recognizcd
江ed the
銚 perlmental paradigm,therefore,demons廿
C卜БVs as much as 810/0. The士
vhch
had
acmally
never
happened.
Hence
magninde ofhow people remembered eventsヽ
this kind of list learning paraditttn is regarded as the false inemory paraditttn.
Why do people incorrectly assume that the CNWs were presented? Some
7e attempted to explain false memo五 es such as these with various theottes,
researcllers ha■
including the mplicit associative response theory(IAR theory;Undem7ood,1965),and
the spreading achvttion theory(Collins&Ltths,1975). A common clttm of these
theories is that the false memory is caused by association(Robinson&Roedger,1997),
namely,participants associated CNWs iom related hst words implicitly or explicidy at
study,and they falsely reca1l or recognized CNWs at test.This idea of an association
beいween concepts and words is a key pnnciple for consttucting a model of inforlnation
processing by bilinguals.By using this idea we have assllmed ttat we could
manner in 、 vhich bilinguals process infomation in more han one language, and also
vere used.
discuss the storage systems that、
The purpose of the present investigation is to reweal what kinds of memory
representations ordhacF Japanese university sttdents have conceming both Japanese and
English vocabularies employing the false memo甲
paradibq■ mentioned above, Do they
called
have more or less independent separate slorages for the h/o lexiconsjust like
the so―
■
th
the士
v ould have? Or do they have the interdependent storage、
coordinate bilinguals、
corresponding equivalent ttvo words represented closely sharing a common con
like the so,called compound bilinguals? There inight be some possibilities that we have to
assllme another different kind of storage to explain the data we ttrould obtain ttom our
false rnemory expe五 ment using plural lists in lnore than one language.
In order to achieve ollr purpose,we are going to test h7hether or not false inemories
o lexicons are stored
If h汀
can be created by word lists in a difFerent language.
independently in separate storages,that khd of cross― lingual false recognition does not
OCCllr
SO easily,However,if ollr data show more or less
lingual
い内7,and that cross―
words and their corresponding C卜
language ofthe presented list、
汀
e
could
conclude
that
both
Japanesc
and
En31iSh
Words
are
false recognition happens,、
the
vidlits common concept shared.
rcprcscntcd closcd rclatcd possibly、
恥恥航 w e C a n r o u g h l y p r e d i c t , u s i n g t h e f a lpsaer amdeimtotり
n that focuscs only on
correct memoり
or hit ratc in recognition)is that, according to the independent storage
s
KA‖ /ASAKI‐ WttYAJl,Dヾ OU■ ,&YAX4A
258
hypothesis, the participants wOuld rccogllize morc of tllc prcsentcd 、
vOrds 、vhen thc
language of the test、汀Ord and studied wOrd matched. According tO the interdependent
storage hypothesis, hO、 vcver, thcre 、vOuld be little differences whether the languages
matched Or ttO direrent ianguttes M″ ere used for tllc test、
vords and sttdied words,
Using the false memOry paradigm,、
ve cOuld make mrther predictiOns. The presellt
sttdy applied this icular
pa■ experrnental pttadttm tO the ttctiOnal independence―
interdependence issue Of bilintttals fOr the flrst time.Hence,irstly,we
shOuld ve五
敏 if
false meinoり is created or not h/hen English wOrds are used fOr Japanese‐
dominant
ヽ
ve believe that it shOuld be sO tO sonle extent iOm either
hypOthesis,Ollr routt predictiOn abOut false recottitiOn Of
bilingual ptticipants.
CNWs
wOuld
According tO the independence hypothesis,we cOuld predict that peOple、
汗Ould incorrectly
vOrd and list、vOrd was matchcd.
This is because it is cOnsidered that an incorrect FnemOry of the C闘アshOuld be created
recottize mOre C■ lWs when the lanttage ofthc test、
、
vithin the sallle language as the list language.
on the other hand, accOrding tO the
interdependence or shared― stored hypothesis,、ve could predict that the proportiOn of false
CllW recognitiOn wOuld not vary tthether these h7o languages were the saIIle or not.
Even if the tinterdependence hypothesis was supported,the language dominance of
each bilingual participant might induence thett recognitiOn perfOttance when the
languages were different fOr the list wOrd and test wOrd. It was herefore cOnsidered
desirable thatthe data shOuld be analyzed also in telns Ofthe individual differences ofthe
language domhance Of he participants.
The dominance would be indicated by dle
discrepancy Of he dittt Span test perfomance by dle participants h English and in
Japanese(the
lanttageS
used
in
the
present
study).
WEETHODS
D2Sを ″!
The investigation used a 2(list language of either English or Japanese)by 2(test language of either
English oI Japallesc)miXed factorial design All the factors were within,sub」
ects The depcndent variable
リマ
as the hit rates ofthe list items and the false―
alalm rates Of CWs
Pク〃,c,α″なf
Scvenけ ,fOur undergraduatc studcnts from Doshisha Universi,partiCipated in the experiment as a
partialれlf11lment oftheir coulse requirement,All the participants were Japanese universiけ
students who had
ァ
leamed English for at icast seven)′
ears(nゃ t_ゝ
ear students were not hcluded in oul investigation)MOSt Of
them、 vere considered as unbalanced bilinguals because th,y had not been bom or brought up in an English,
spea【hg coun町・The deerec Oflanguage dOminance,hoM,ev軒 ,varlcd accordhg tO the language acquisitlon
histoり Of each hdi、′
idual, The discrepancy Of bilingual auditott digit span test ranged from―
I tO+5 To
calculate it,HFe Subtracted English digit span scOre from Japanese digit span scOre in each particiPant WVe
′
vagじely dcflnc bilingual individuals,just as Biaい
StOk(2001)did,as those pecPle■ hO are able to speak hPo
r mOre)lanttages 10 sOme levd ofprondency
(。
Mar夕・
わな!
WVe developed t■
eive sndy lists and six distracter lists,Mhich wn
areinsho、
the Appendix Ofthe present
paper Tweive lsts were similar to the mateHals developedけ
Roediger and McDemlo■(1995)_The)'made
lists which induced false memo■ Of CいこWVs considering、テ
ith Russell and Jc劇
に
ins's(1954)word aSSOCiation
be
259
CROSS― LINGLIISnc FALSE RECOGNT10N
norns
Each list was consistcd of the 15 most common associates to CNヽ
V basically
Further they
substinted other related words when they seemed more appropritte(ic,mOre likely to elicitthe CNWs as卸
アThe remainders ofthe lisis were inttoduced by Miyai and Yalna(2002)They made
a_Rsoclate)occaSiOnal、
apanese lる
ts whlch induced false memott Of CNWs conttdchng with Umemoiois(1969)Japanesc
」
of Roediger and McDelno社(1995)We modined lists of
association norms in the almost salnener
mal■
Roediger and McDerlnoI(1995)and Miytti and Yalna(2002)sbghtly With conttdering Japanesc assodation
norms(UmemOtO,1969)so that each of them could have a corresponding equivalent word in another
lallguagc
vhich consisted of 15 common 、vords and thetr
Finally, ve
、 obtained 18 bilingual lists, cach of、
associates(OSV)Each of the 18 CNWs therefore had a correspondlng 15-word list For exalnple,the
wing orderi boy,dolls,female,you】
13,
vords in the follo、
CNW``Girl''had a corresPonding list of English、
1,cute,date,aunt,daughter,and sister The corresponding Japanese
dress,preけ,hair,nicce,dance,beauti的
''and i also had a 15-word list that consistcd of all the Japancsc
CNW was the Japanese equivalent;``少女
vith half
vords mentioncd above Each participant was given a total of 12 1ists,、
equivalenis for the En31iSh｀
apanese.However a participant was otty given an English list or a
ofthem in English and the remainderin」
"hsi notedお
ove
J a P a n e s e h s t w i t h r c s p e c t i o n e " G i n "少
h s女
t Or“
A recotttion test included 72 items of which 36 、 vere smdied 、vords and 36 non‐smdied 、vords
vere printed in the salne language of the
Studied、vords、verc l,8, 10th ofthe prescnted lists Half ofthem、
、
aT le es np to sn 血w e r e u s e d
s t u d y p h a s e A n d t h e o t h e r h a l f w e r e p m t e d i n h e O t h e r l a n g u a g e , t鴫
h uesq ucioア
Ws associated iom the presented lists.Halfofthem phnted in
studied items wereいC小
in instead Tweive non‐
vhich generate them and rest ofthem were printed h the other language. And
the salne language Ofthe lists、
2 4 w c r e l , 8 , 1 0 t h l i s t w o r d s a n d CpNrWess eonftseidx lniosnt‐s H a l f o f d l e m w e r e p t t t e d h E n g l i s h a n d
vere phnted」i Japanese_
the rest、
ver sheet for recOgnition test as counter‐
was
WVe madeふ wo versions of ans、
balance. Each ansMア
er sheet、
i n t h c f o m o f a m u i t icphloei‐
c e q u e s t i o m a i r e w i t h d l e f o l l o w i n g a l t e m aptrievScesnit(eつ
d in English;(b)
ぶn about whlch ianguttc;(d)■
Ot presented
( c)presented but unce丸
presented h Japanes弓
れ″α″rttf
List items were presented in black trough a personal computer(IBM IntelliStation E Pro Tvpe 6893‐
5 0 J ) o n a W h i t e b a c k g r o u n d i n t h e T cA eC nH tI e rC M o1 f5 8)16T5Mh,」
ei n pc rh e sC eR nT ts a( t配i o n
's PoweI Point 2000
oflistitems were conせolled b_ll Microso丘
t i m e s
f
P/00夕224,セ
vould scc hA/elve lists of vords,
15、
Vere tested inれ
vo grouPs and｀Vere told that they、
The particiPants｀
vords one by one They、 vere infoHned that halfofthe、
vords、vould bc Japanese,half、
or a total of 180、
vould
be En31iSh,and the words、vould be presented on the 15,inch CRT localed in ioコ
t ofeach pair ofparticipants
(the individuals sat side bbr side)The Participants werc also instttcted that thtt would be tested aFtcr the
presentation of the words and that it would be impoltant io remember which ianguage was used for each
ヽ
vord
'ith altemate language modes.
Nere presented in JaPanesc and six in English,、
Six of dle smdy lists、
本
vas presented either in Japanese or in English The
Depending on each Palticipant's grouP a particular list、
材as blocked ln addition,onc、vord、vas displayed cvcりhro Seconds Thusthe
order of presented list items、
d― tion ofthe study session、
vas slx minutes
′and ViSual digit memo,y span
vere given tests ofboth auditoら
Atter the smdy session,the particiPants、
ア
vere bothおl Japanese and in English so tllat indi、
llle tests、
idual participants could be selected for cither a
balanced group or all unbalancedぎsup
Approxunately 20 minutes aner the sttdy session the ans、
ver sheets 、
vere distnbuted and the
PartiCiPants u,crc rcquired to complete thcm An unlinlited timc 、vas peIIloitted for completion of thc
r e c o 即l t i c l n t e s t t t m a r k i n g a p p r o p r i ′
aet ea naslwieermsa tTふ
h e Pcc、
hment was conducted wih tto goups
ofparticipants,and its duration Hras approxilnately 50 minutes
260
KAM′ ASAXu― WIIYAJl,NOU■
Table l
,&YAN4A
Theヽ 4ean PrOportions Of studied ltems,CNM′s and New ltems
Labeled as 01d forthe T、
vo Test Language ConditiOns
Itemsぅ7pes
Sttdied itenis
〃
7 1
(SD)
( 1 4 )
CNh7s
New items
66
4 1
(,24)
(25)
List items
90
円ｏどこ的ｏｏｏＥＥｏちＬｏαｏＬ住
■ English at Test
80
□」apanese at Test
70
60
50
40
.30
20
10
00
English
uapanese
English
List Language
」 apanese
List Language
Fig.1. Ille propOHlons ofrecognition oflistitems(lei)and OfCN■
7s(right)
RESULTS
』ち
ば,cク
″
θ
ぅなな
0、タ
タ哲〃/夕cθg,7 irわ
'7.The hit rate Of 01d list items and tle false―
alam rates ofCNWs
and new items are sho、、
硯 in Table ll.口 le results of a one―
way ANOVA(wordS:Sndied
items,CNWs,Or new items)indiCated that the main effect Of words was signincant
ther analysis with lttey's HSD test revealed that the
(F(2,146)=92.32,P<.005).Fピ
sttded items and the CNWs were recottized morethan the nω
高tems o<.01).
These results suggested that palticipants had difflculty in discriminattt between the
although they could quite easily rdect the urrelatcd new
sndied items and the 7s
CNヽ
itellls.
F七 . 1 11lusttates the」絶cts Oflist ianguage and test language On the hit rates ofthe
list items and the false_alam rates of the C■
lWs.Fttst,an ANOVA with a 2(list
〕In thc Present cxperllnent,particiPantS｀
WCrc rCquircd io rccognizc not only the list itcms‐
bui also CNWVs
and urrclated words in the fom of a muitiple,choice questionnatre widl the followhg altematives:(a)
presented in English:(b)presented in Japanese;(c)preSented but uncertain about、
ポhch language:(d)nOt
presented TherefOre,the answers catc30rized as(a),(b),Or(c)fOrlist iems were counted as hit and those
CNヽVs and ulrelated H,ords as false‐
alarln Because it h7aS 100 complex that we took the more particular
classiflcatiOn intO cOnsideratiOn ande'd
Mアli【
e to consider the participanisわ
infomation process ofrneanings
CROSS― LINGtIISTIC FALSE RECOGNIT10N
Table 2
The Proportions of Recognition of List ltems and CNWs in the Balanced and Unbalanced
Group
Japanese
English
List iantttage
Test language
English
En31lSh
Japanese
Japallese
List items
Balanced Group
ν
(SD)
Unbalanced Group
ν
(SD)
80
79
( 1 9 )
79
( 1 7 )
67
( 1 9 )
キ
∃
曙
(27)
( . 2 3 )
( 1 8 )
CNWs
Balanced Group
ν
(.38)
( 3 1 )
ν
56
7 1
(SD)
(34)
(29)
dD)
Unbalanced Group
79
76
75
58
( 3 5 )
(.27)
68
62
( 3 1 )
(.34)
*Thereた a sigttScani difFerence betteen the balanced and unbalanced
<05)
goup ψ
language)by 2(test language)deSign on the hit rates of list items was conducted,The
mam effeα oflist language was signincantば
(1,73)=23.63,P<.01).ThiS meant that the
items presented in English were recottzed more tllan those presented in Japanese.
Ftterlnore,there was a signiflcant interaction bcnween factors of list ianguage and test
ianguage(F(1,73)=26.51,P<,001).ThiS indicated that the list items which were
presented in English were more recognized in English than in Japanese(F(1,146)=6.56,
P < , 0 5 ) , a n d t h a t t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n J a p a n e s e w e r e r e c o g n i z e d m o r e o f t e n (i 1n , J a p a n e s e ば
146)=23.05,P<.01).
Another ANOVA using the 2(list language)by 2(test language)deSigl was
い内7s, A main effect of test language 、vas
conducted on thc false―alarlll rates of C卜
s were recoさ
signiScant(F(1,73)=4.53,P<.05).ThiS meant hat more CNヽア
梨ized in
Japanese than in English(see the rittt pallel ofFig.1)and cOincided with the patem fo
the list iems displayed in Japanese dwing the sttdb7 seSSlon.HOwever the paiem forthe
lW.C■
vas different bchJecn the list itenl and
items in English during the sttdy session、
″θうなな・TO take the effect of the proiciency in English of each participant
C,力
θttP α
v ere a1located to either
ve divided thel■
intoふwo bCroups. The participants、
into account,、
digit rnemory span in
group according to the deeFee of discrepancy bettween their auditoり
Japanese and in English,that is,(a)Balanced Group and(b)Unbalanced Group.The
vas calculated as follo、
vs. WVe subiacted English
discrepancy of auditory digit span test、
vith
digit span scorc ionl Japancsc digit span scorc in cach particiPant. The participants、
the
discrepancy
iom-1
lo
l
were
nalned
Balanccd
Group
grouped asl」nbalanced Group. The number ofthc participants、vho belonged to]3alanced
and
thos
262
KAヽ
ア
ASAK工 lN41YA工
,DヾOUE,&YAN4A
Croup、 vas 24 and that ofUIlbalanced Group、ア
as 30.
Table 2 shoM,s the ettect of list language and test ianguage on the hit rates Of list
i t e m s a n d t h e f a l s e , a l a m a r a t c s o f C N W s f o r b o t l l g o u p s , c r i t i
ア
れ｀
0 野 Oups 私ア
ere obseNed Only in tlle hit rates of the English presented― 」apanese
r e c o giコ
z e d l i s t i t e m s ( r ( 5 2 ) = 2 . 2 4 , P < 0 5 ) , a an pd a nt el sl ee 」p r e s e n t e dJ 一
apanese
rCCOEttiZed O1les(r(52)=2.28,P<.05).The hit rates fOr Balanced Group of tlle list items
ere cOmparatively higher both for the English test and for the
presented in English 、ア
」apanese test HOuアever, Unbalanced Group's perfoHllance was not as good u′ hen the
rccognition M′
as tested in」
a panese.
DIscusSION
The main puttose of the present investigation is to reveal、
′
内
hat kind of bilingual
memory ordinalD/Japallese university sttdents possess IIom the results of ollr false
menlory experllnent.
The results that are sho、
w■on the lett pane1 0f Fig. 1 血
dicate that our partlcipants'
perfomance was better for tlae recognition of the list words when the language was
nlatched, 恥 eir perfOInance dcteriorated、 vhen私ア
ords that、vere displayed in Japanese
dwing the stuⅢ
sesSiOn were tested in English.We had predicted that if the
intcrdependent storage ttpothesis would be suppotted by ollr investigation,then it would
n o t m a k e a b i g d i f f e r eh ne ct eh ヤ
er tte language used for the smdy and testing Of a word
was the salne,or noto COnsequently,we cOuld not conclude thatthis hypOthesis had be
supported by our results.
Next,we discuss on the results of false recOgnition of CNWVs
More CNWVs were
recognized falsely、 vhen the test words were presented in Japanese than in English. It
shapes the sanle pattem as that of hit recognition seen in the condition in、vhich the list
words M′ere presented in Japanese
This inconsistency beh汀 een the list、
汀ords and C卜い内7s、
vould inake us infer that it is
t o o h a slけ
o cOnclude that thc indcPendent stOrage hypothesis should be supporte
overall data,or to suggest this hypotllesis could explain it, We cOncluded,therefOre,that
the silnple independent stOrage hypothesis could not interpret our data and that if、
煎e
attempted to do so,this hypothesis lnust be lnodifled.
The present investigation was also an atempt to reveal the encoding strategies that
our participants used when they memo五
zed a number of、
vords iom い汗o different
languages.The results oftlle false recognition of CNWs(mentiOned above)indiCated that
more CNWs、
vere rccognized in Japancsc test、ア
ords than in English test私/ords. It wollld
be plausible therefore,tO speculate that our participants inight generate more associations,
′
whch linkcd the list wOrds to CNヽ
s,mllcn they proccssed thC infomation in Japanese
rathcr than in English. It seems to be only natural for Japanesc― dominant bilinguals to
use language than they do when the words
generate more associations in their easier‐to―
are presentcd in their、
平eaker language.
WVe cOuld possibly assume thereforc,that thc qualih′ ofthe hlo units Ofindcpendent
CROSS、 LDRGuSTIC FALSE RECOGNITION
storage is nOt the sanle,and that the un■
Of tlle dOminant lallguage(Japanesc in this case)
is ready to spOntaneously create more associations. The unit Of the veaker
、
language
(English in this case)hOweVer, is not capable of generating associatiOns Or has Only a
l i m i t e d c a p a c i t t f O r i t . I n a d d i t i O n , w e c o u l d s u g g e s t
t h a
、
vould tend tO transiate the input item intO the other lallguage sO vOuld
that it、
be easier tO
retain any incoming concepts. It has already becn noted by Durgunoglu and Roediger
巴l rehearsal strategy for bilinguals.It was also suggested
(1987)thattranslation was a use台
by Sh血lizu and lnoue(1988)that thC code for the rehearsa1 0f items whch were to be
renenlbered wOuld be the language that was easier to use and、
vas more often used fOr
eve=yday cOmmunicatlon.
ThiS type Ofunbalanced independent stOrage n10del lnight predict the data ofthe list
、
vords nluch beter than the simple independent stOrage hypOthesis dOes,particularly for
the discrepancy behAreen English and Japanese list words. With respect tO the resuits of
the list、
平Ords,we cOuld infer that our participants encoded the sttdied、vOrds M′
hich、ぁ
Fere
O ditterent languages,that is,both in English and Japanese. But
presented in English in hげ
many of them may have emp10yed another strategy, inv01ving encOding 、
、
■th One
language only、vhen the sttdy lists、
vcre presented in Japanese. The sttategy、vas probably
used because most Of Our participants、 vere Japanese―dOminant bilinguals. cOnsequently
the participants 、
vOuld tend to encode each、 vOrd in tenns Of their ianguage that、
was
relatively easier to use,nalnely,Japanese in this case. By using different sttategies fOr the
Japanese list and fOr the En31iSh list,ther perfoHnance wOuld be enhanced for the list
itenls in the、
veakerianguage because they could be encOded、 vith h汀
O different lanttageS.
Paivio(1991)applied his sO_called dual cOding hypothesis tO bilinDCuai memOり
and
in■oduced the bilingual versiOn of dual cOding hypothesis, He assumed separate verbal
systems corresponding to each of the bilingual's t颯ア
o languages and alsO a third,
nonverbal,imageEy system. According tO his bilingual versiOn of dual cOding hypothesis,
it、
村ould be suggested that participants cOuld beneflt iOm encoding intOぃ
西
′
o different
languages.
The questiOn cOuld no、v be askedi、vhat、vOuld be a reasOnable explanatiOn for the
result of he C卜い内ア
s displayed on the right pane1 0f Fig.1? wve Obsetted that the
′
participants incorrectly recOgnized nlore C悶
s in Japanese than in English,regaldless Of
the language used in the cOrrespOnding list. The CNWs‐ R/ere not displayed during the
s 的Ⅲ p h a s e . B u t i t i s p O s s i b l e t h a t a n c r t h c p a r t i c i p a n t s v i e w e d s O m e w O r d s , f O r e x a l l l p l e ,
“
、
vhte'', ``dttk", ``cat'ち
and``red"they could easily assOciate the criticalvOrd“
、 black''.
恥hen he list was presented in their weそ
求er la、
age(English
in
this
case),the
language
さ
used for the generated 、
vOrd nlay have been eitller English Or Japanese because they
tended to translate an English、
vOrd into Japanesc atleast in some cases. 13ut、
vhen the list
was presented in the dominant lan抑
軽 e(Japancse),most of the palticipants mab/have
seldom transiated each wOrd fronl Japanese into English. Thus they Only generated
associations not in English but in Japanese. This ldnd Of processing、
vOuld have made it
easler to generate an assOciated、
vOrd in he participants'dOminant language. It shOuld be
notcd that thc cNWs wcre assOciated more in Japanesc and it did not depend On the
language used in thc sttdied list,
264
KA品
′
ASAK]―WdYAJI,INO旺 ,&YANIA
Although a1l of our Japanese participants were bilingual, some were relatively
balanced bilinguals and tlle otters、vere not, 恥砲 assumed that if the participants were
Vhen
balanced bilinguais,they would have a smaller discrepancy in digit span test. ヽ
participants were Japanese‐ dominant bilinguals,however,they mittt htte a larger
discrepancy because they probably cannot remember so many digits in dleir 、
veaker
language as in their dominant one.
as conf1111led in such an investigation like Chincotta and
This relationship 私 ″
Underwood(1997).They exttnined tlle relationship between reading rate and memoリ
span, and concluded that digit span was tteater in the dominant language than in the
私retter one.
ア
Wヽ
e like to focus on the impressive difference that only occuFed behtteen the hr。
groups. It was shoMIl that the correct recognihon for list items tested in Japanese was
better in Balanced Group than in Unbalanced Group.Itis notewoihy thatthe pate
汀as identical to the corresponding overall results
dle overall results for Unbalanced Group、
汗as only obsetted in the perfolnallce of
of all the participants. A difference therefore,、
Balanced Group.
C o n s e q u e n t l y i t c a n b e s u g g e s t e d t h a t i n t h e p r e s e n t s t t d y p a r/thioc iwpearnet s ■
balanced bilinguals could easily ttansfom the infoHnation in the list words最 om English
dominant participants. Itis also sho■7n
to Japanese,but that、was not the case for Japanese―
that CNWs were highly recognized by the balanced bilinguals especially for the cross‐
lingual false memory,which nlight suggest that balanced bilinguals could more easily
transform the infolnation宜om one language to the otller.
CONCLUS10N
The results that were obtained here did not appear to support the interdependent
storage hypothesis because ollr participants recognized more list items when the lanttage
used for the test、
汗ords and the smdied wOrds wasthe same.
In addition our participants generated more associations, including CNWs, 、
vhen
they sttded Japanese lists and when they were tested with Japancse words.It mighi be
plausible therefore,to think that ordinarily they generated an associated word in their
dolninant ianguage. This tendency is especially salient for the Japanese― dominant
bilinguals whose ability to tllink in their weaker lanに
早age Was considered to be limited.
Butit could be suggested that more balanced bilin【車als would ttansfom inforlnation iom
one language into anothcr rnore teely and more easily.
It is considered that a model、vhich、vould completely flt our data especially for the
unbalanced bilingual participants is nOt slnple,independent storage hypothesis,but so― to―
spcak unbalanccd, indcpcndcnt storagc modcl. Thc lattcr accommodatcsぃ
vo units of
unequal ttctions fOr each Of dle 伸
o languages.
As mentioned earlier, most of our
participants were to some extent Japanese_dominant bilinguals whO had difflculty in
transforlning Japanesc infonコ ation into English, WVe should be carentt thcrefore,in any
generalization of our results to ordintt bililleualS,ifindeed there are any bilinguals uFhO
CROSS― LINGLESTIC FALSE RECOGNITION
can be called“ ordina呼 ".COnsequently it would not be risl研
fOr ow cOnclusiOns to
rcmain as naodcst,at least until ″
an
in、
estigation
ofother types Ofbilinguals、
vill be cttied
out. ヽ
在ore detailcd infolnation on the dcgree of bilingualism for the participants shOuld
be provided in the following investigations in order to specitt thC applicabihtt Of
model.
REFERENCES
BialystoL E 2001 β Fわ?gaィ
ク′
?冴a,夕q″′
な″7'ア
″er7rfと
α,7部
4α
αのみα'?″
C98'7'7′
θ,? Canlbhdgei Cambridge
=?,′frc″
Universiぃ,Press
′
Chincota,D,&Undcnvood,G.1997 Bilingual memoり
′
span ad、
antage for Arabic numcrals O、
cr digit
・
words β′
,′
な力乃研,7α
′ヴPッ677θ
′
09',88,295310
Collins,AM,&Lo魚
沢夕、
ガa?,82,407車
コs,E F 1975 A spreading―
28
actvation theoT of semanhc processing Pり
,cみ
ο/Ogrca′
Deese,J.1959 0n the prediction of occurence ofParticular verbal intrusiOns in inlmediate recall 02〃
」サ
22′
9/Eフケル,9?ね
′
ニッcFaο
わg,58,17セ 2
Dugmog比
eと
・ TCtt dtteに nces h征蕊
ng闘
噂週 mem叫
励
初
ヴ
Gro可
rttfど
靴品!留
札
nttF総
!所
s軍
焼,協
播甘幡艦1品
,;鵡
逆
発を
競岩
今デゑ
藩繊
言嘉ど ;ぱ
Lttbe)を
r堪
Bhngu』 Orgttzホ On h iee ttc創ヵ冴材ヴ
,あ 'どす機
挽ァ
銑ナ
;‖
i;31〕
;号 3を晶
httZ能
軸塊
胡銅ぶ滴徒pend的前
胡主ヵ″材何助 "″ 切ガ
晩
湯緋
洗齢」静
M i y a i t Y , & Y a m a , H 2 0 0 2 . M t t i n g J a pt as n ew sh ei c lh おi n d u c e f a l s e m e m O t t fa ot r h tt ht e p r O b a b i l i け
d抑筋
夕
/aPω
・
容
れ仰冴
あっ
″
蔵力
で
ゲ
れを
m En釣
初抑-2a Cn hpanese宙
酬野
P航
宙
°
g盟
″
航
ち
7分
た
け
';￨と
ァ
勝!θ
獄描掛
′
あ
'務
ジ
私
daど
ど
滑
き
獣
極
u撤
鵜
二
。
鴛
署
,NttL品
罫
Rottn,路
9・
Assodれ
ve procttng
h劇ttd
賛に
call
ttseに
cOgttdOn
洗
81亀
勝盤号
を
と
ILダ
品,と
縄
眺
緒
輩灘露笠器譜駆
Sh前
utt T 1988 The effed Ofrehels劇
鋭raettes On iee rec創 Ⅲ nCdeai P串でヵοゎ
」ら 31,
後 ≧ 生 in°
Utte鞘
1符
にs p O n 弱乃 ″" がヴゥヶヵ湖
聖航b °n P I o d u c 調い航が前 w 調
i2愛断
ち
施
Umem群
を
髭
わ7ル
タ
ア
wsヴ
切
2あな
御
ブ
説
あな
響切
湯
最も
盈r驚
軽
腎
s卒
強
塁
苫
も
薫
僻
;と
輸
C&納鉛良ttts乳
艦 a盤
撚P掘淵明?勝現だ粉。
満ぱ
恥準
Wd町
筋すい・edj The HaguαModOL and New Ytt Lhgulstlc cttde
ぞ:無監鑑登魚罷品竹督
Young,RK.,&Saegert,J 1966 Tralasfer with bilinguals Pslで
力ο″θ,,7'C SCた
ヵc夕
,6,161-162
・
,7あ
御 24 2θ θ」f ttatる
υ%御 7否 0ウ r,セCαAセ ″S9ダ ?′
,ο,7 θ
CCマ〃ア
タ冴PVθl)り,わ夕'2j2θ
θョ)
K A ヽV A S A K J ― ヽイ
IYAJl,IRTOUE,&Yぷ
ィ
臥
A p p e n d ょ 1 . 1 8 E n g i i s h L i s t s U s e d i n T h i s m Ee xn pl e 占
black林
brcad球
chalrネ
cold*
7*
dirl■
nlad
'hite
、
、
bu“er
desk
hoi
toilet
fear
dttk
food
sit
sno、ア
hier
hate
cat
cat
scat
'ann
、
、
soiled
rage
red
s a n d ぃ, i c h
table
、ア
inteI
unciean
temper
night
Aie
rocking
lCC
ditch
角A'
ndneral
Jam
sofa
chill),
lre
color
milk
moumlng
nour
bench
ヽア
00d
fttcid
、ア
et
se、ア
age
、
、
Tath
happy
blue
nlargarine
recliner
heat
drain
nght
death
rice
school
、
veather
mud
hatred
illk
bake
cuslon
freeze
tan
slice
的 mi代 Fe
floorcloth
clean
trash
COOl
coal
sttdy
shiver
sea
emotion
bro、、
コ
soup
comfottable
Arctic
pure
cmビage
野 ay
toast
rest
f r o s t
fllth
footキ
fruitネ
giriキ
hear中
hopeキ
music+
shce
apple
bo〕ア
speak
的仙re
note
hand
vegetable
dolls
read
drealn
sound
toe
orange
female
lecttre
big
臨c k
路、
、
1
lisiening
sandals
melon
yOung
d r e s s
ear
prOmlsing
arnbition
PlanO
sing
soccer
mpe
nlmor
success
knee
pear
Pr中
hatr
specch
bHghi
lnelody
banana
n】
ece
ask
hom
strawbe叩
cheコら,
basket
dance
、Tite
おeいt
tOmOFOヽV
beautiful
sav
realization
ins―
high
symphony
song
pleasant
dissappointment
JaZZ
orchestra
ヽ
Pア
、
alk
heel
anll
boot
cute
radio
band
concert
ent
SOCk
」ulCC
salad
aunt
smell
fresh
daughter
sto可
idcal
art
head
cocktail
sister
n e 、v s
life
rhySIn
painallネ
lnlu弓ア
peaceキ
sieepネ
weet球
s、
、
vindo、
v■
plgeon
spolts
bed
sour
door
=lass
Hiroshinla
p i l l ov、
vake
a、
candy
itchy
」ogging
bus
suger
thom
、
worid
'c
lo、
fast
tired
bi“er
pane
shade
S】
ZC
stomach
needle
PinCh
cut
blood
opcratloll
hurt
constliutlon
date
dog
grecn
treaⅢ
qulet
ア
Safeも
lullaby
dessert
ledge
M′
akc
iastc
house
car
snooze
tooth
open
adlletics
bianket
hone、ア
curta〕
n
POtate
soda
iarne
chase
escapc
training
prick
lllJCCtiOn
ア
、
、
isll
freedOm
marathOn
siap
Japan
train
disease
hard
calm
rela、
ne=Otiation
stOp
孝CNW ofllle lisi
race
doze
siumber
sBore
nap
rer
reco、
droM'sy
close
chocolate
′
salふ
brecze
cake
sash
tart
screen
e
p〕
shuier
267
CROSS― LINGUISTIC FALSE RECOGNITION
APpendよ
怒リキ
里
狂つた
恐れ
1曽む
激怒
短気
狂暴
憤怒
罰
愉1夫な
けんか
1曽しみ
卑劣な
冷静な
感情
怒らせる
足*
白
]音
い
ねこ
赤
夜
葬式
色
喪
青
死
インク
日焼け
石炭
茶色
灰色
フルーツネ
靴
手
つま先
蹴る
サングル
サッカー
ひざ
歩く
かかと
腕
ブーツ
サイズ
靴下
臭い
ネ
冷たい+
わる
席
卓
楽
ファー
ンチ
製
もたれ
校
ぶとん
具
5生
地よい
息
便
所
熱い
み
雪
ご
あたたかいよごれた
冬
不
漂
ぶ
氷
ど
川
冷淡な
下
水
極寒の
湿った
ぞ
うきん
熱
汚 71く
天気
泥
づける
片
凍る
ず
空気
く
身震いする海
北極
清
潔な
霜
汚
物
キ
希望
音楽章
少年
人形
女性
若 ↓ヽ
ドレス
話す
読む
講義
リスエング
熟れた
洋ナシ
バナナ
イチゴ
さくらんぼ
かご
ジュース
き'ttヽ
髪
姪
ダンス
美しい
かわいい
デート
おば
娘
妹
走るキ
平
ネCNW ofthe list
机
す
食物
座
食べる
サンドインチ食
ライ麦
安
ソ
ジャム
牛乳
ベ
小麦粉
木
マーガリン背
ご飯
学
ざ
焼く
一切れ
家
ワイン
勉
スープ
心
トースト
休
子キ
リンゴ
野菜
オレンジ
キーウィ
メロン
痛いネ
痛気
つらい
椅
聞くネ
要
利す
注射
たたく
パン中
バター
少女ネ
サラダ
新鮮な
カクテル
傷
腹
かゆい
離
針
つねる
切る
血
手術
け力S
2. 18 Japanese Lisis Used ill ThisPcriment
E、
和
ネ
鳩
戦争
広島
世界
愛
憲法
緑
条約
のどか
安全
望む
自由
日本
穂やか
交渉
耳
噂
講演
尋ねる
書く
言う
見る
声
歌
話
ニュース
覆るネ
スポーツ
ベツド
ジョギング
枕
目覚める
疲れた
子守歌
起きる
居眠り
毛布
まどろむ
うとうとする
いびき
昼寝
回復する
あくび
眠い
ノミテ
ス
速い
大
追う
自動車
陸上
逃げる
トレーニング
競走
マラノン
電車
リレー
止まる
将来
夢
大きい
有望な
大志
成功
明るい
光
明日
実現
高い
楽しい
失望
理想
人生
廿い球
汚
ないキ
音符
窓
ピアノ
歌う
ラジオ
バンド
旋律
ホルン
コンサート
楽器
交響曲
ジャズ
オーケストラ
芸術
リズム
・
すつばい
戸
キャンディガ
砂糖
枠
にが ↓ヽ
日
デザートで
味
家
歯
開
ハチミツ
カ
さつまいもフ
ノーダ
聞
チョコレート風
塩手い
そ
ケーキ
サ
タルト
網
パイ
雨
ラス
よけ
っばり
ける
ーテン
レーム
める
景
よ風
ッシ
戸
戸

Download Report