Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Together or apart: Learning of translation-ambiguous words*


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.

Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Tamar Degani, The Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel 3498838
Hide All

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. R. Anderson (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451474.

J. R. Anderson , & L. M. Reder (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186197.

D. A. Balota , M. J. Yap , M. J. Cortese , K. A. Hutchison , B. Kessler , B. Loftis , J. H. Neely , D. L. Nelson , G. B. Simpson , & R. Treiman (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445459.

E. Bialystok (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the Simon task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 6879.

A. M. B. De Groot , & H. Comijs (1995). Translation recognition and translation production: Comparing a new and an old tool in the study of bilingualism. Language Learning, 45, 467509.

A. M. B. De Groot , L. Dannenburg , & J. G. Van Hell (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600629.

C. Izura , M. A. Pérez , E. Agallou , V. C. Wright , J. Marín , H. Stadthagen-González , & A. W. Ellis (2011). Age/order of acquisition effects and the cumulative learning of foreign words: A word training study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 3258.

J. D. Karpicke , & H. L. III Roediger (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151162.

J. D. Karpicke , & H. L. Roediger III (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966968.

J. F. Kroll , & E. Stewart (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149174.

L. Lotto , & A. M. B. De Groot (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 3169.

J. L. McClelland , & D. E. Rumelhart (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375407.

M. A. McDaniel , J. L. Anderson , M. H. Derbish , & N. Morrisette (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494513.

T. N. Medina , J. Snedeker , J. C. Trueswell , & L. R. Gleitman (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 90149019.

K. Morgan-Short , C. Sanz , K. Steinhauer , & M. T. Ullman (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154193.

A. Pasquarella , A. Gottardo , & A. Grant (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.

C. A. Perfetti (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357383.

L. Postman , & J. F. Parker (1970). Maintenance of first-list associations during transfer. The American Journal of Psychology, 83, 171188.

L. Postman , & B. J. Underwood (1973). Critical issues in interference theory. Memory and Cognition, 1, 1940.

A. Prior , B. MacWhinney , & J. F. Kroll (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.

K. A. Rawson , & J. Dunlosky (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283302.

J. R. Stroop (1935). Studies in interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643662.

N. Tokowicz , & T. Degani (2010). Translation ambiguity: Consequences for learning and processing. In B. Van Patten & J. Jegerski (eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing, pp. 281–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

N. Tokowicz , & J. F. Kroll (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727779.

N. Tokowicz , J. F. Kroll , A. M. B. De Groot , & J. G. Van Hell (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, 34, 435451.

I. J. Torres , L. A. Flashman , D. S. O'Leary , & N. C. Andreasen (2001). Effects of retroactive and proactive interference on word list recall in schizophrenia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 481490.

E. Tulving , & M. J. Watkins (1974). On negative transfer: Effects of testing one list on the recall of another. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 181193.

M. L. Turner , & R. W. Engle (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127154.

B. J. Underwood (1969). Attributes of memory. Psychological Review, 76, 559573.

C. N. Wahlheim , & L. L. Jacoby (2011). Experience with proactive interference diminishes its effects: Mechanisms of change. Memory and Cognition, 39, 185195.

M. D. Wilson (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20, 611.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1366-7289
  • EISSN: 1469-1841
  • URL: /core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 57 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 199 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.