Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-mrcq8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T10:59:42.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Together or apart: Learning of translation-ambiguous words*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2014

University of Haifa
University of Pittsburgh
University of Pittsburgh
Address for correspondence: Tamar Degani, The Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave, Mount Carmel, Haifa,


In a multiple-session training study, native English speakers learned foreign Dutch vocabulary items that mapped to English either in a one-to-one way (translation-unambiguous) or in a one-to-many way (translation-ambiguous), such that two Dutch words corresponded to a single English translation. Critically, these two translation-ambiguous Dutch words were taught on consecutive trials in the same session, or were presented separately, such that each word was taught in a separate session. Translation-ambiguous words were produced and recognized substantially less accurately than translation-unambiguous words on tests administered one and three weeks after training. An ambiguity advantage emerged, however, in a free-recall test. Interestingly, teaching both translations together led to superior performance over teaching them in separate sessions, in which case the translation learned first enjoyed a considerable advantage over that learned second. These findings underscore the importance of order of acquisition in second-language vocabulary learning, and have practical implications for language instruction.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



This project was supported by NSF-BCS 0745372 and a Language Learning Grant awarded to NT. During the writing of this manuscript, TD was supported by EU_FP7 grant CIG-322016 and NT was supported by PSI2009-12616 Procesamiento Léxico y Sintáctico en la Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.


Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. C., & Neely, J. H. (1996). Interference and inhibition in memory retrieval. In Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. (eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Memory (2nd edn.), pp. 237313. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the Simon task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 6879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., & Duyck, W. (2010). Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 359371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Comijs, H. (1995). Translation recognition and translation production: Comparing a new and an old tool in the study of bilingualism. Language Learning, 45, 467509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., Dannenburg, L., & Van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Van Hell, J. G. (2005). The learning of foreign language vocabulary. In Kroll & De Groot (eds.), pp. 9–29.Google Scholar
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 299314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll & De Groot (eds.), pp. 88–108.Google Scholar
DeLosh, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). The role of order information in free recall: Application to the word-frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 11361146.Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Examining English–German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 442457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izura, C., Pérez, M. A., Agallou, E., Wright, V. C., Marín, J., Stadthagen-González, H., & Ellis, A. W. (2011). Age/order of acquisition effects and the cumulative learning of foreign words: A word training study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 3258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2009). Bilingualism reduced native-language interference during novel word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 829835.Google ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.) (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2001). The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 4971. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laxén, J., & Lavaur, J. M. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: Effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 157183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotto, L., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 3169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Neufeld, K. H., & Damico-Nettleton, S. (2001). Many-to-one and one-to-many associative learning in a naturalistic task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 182194.Google Scholar
Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 90149019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasquarella, A., Gottardo, A., & Grant, A. (2012). Comparing factors related to reading comprehension in adolescents who speak English as a first (L1) or second (L2) language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 475503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poepsel, T., Gerfen, C., & Weiss, D. J. (2012). Context, mutual exclusivity, and the challenge of multiple mappings in word learning. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (vol. 2), pp. 474486.Google Scholar
Postman, L., & Gray, W. (1977). Maintenance of prior associations and proactive inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 255263.Google Scholar
Postman, L., & Parker, J. F. (1970). Maintenance of first-list associations during transfer. The American Journal of Psychology, 83, 171188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postman, L., & Underwood, B. J. (1973). Critical issues in interference theory. Memory and Cognition, 1, 1940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2012). Can testing immunize memories against interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 17801785.Google ScholarPubMed
Prior, A., Kroll, J. F., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 458474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 10291038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies in interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Degani, T. (2010). Translation ambiguity: Consequences for learning and processing. In Van Patten, B. & Jegerski, J. (eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing, pp. 281–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J. F., De Groot, A. M. B., & Van Hell, J. G. (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, 34, 435451.Google ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 255272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, I. J., Flashman, L. A., O'Leary, D. S., & Andreasen, N. C. (2001). Effects of retroactive and proactive interference on word list recall in schizophrenia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 481490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tulving, E., & Watkins, M. J. (1974). On negative transfer: Effects of testing one list on the recall of another. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 181193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, B. J. (1969). Attributes of memory. Psychological Review, 76, 559573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Experience with proactive interference diminishes its effects: Mechanisms of change. Memory and Cognition, 39, 185195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20, 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar