RESEARCH ARTICLE
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Cla a D. Ma in
Basque cen e on Cogni ion,
B ain and Language, Paseo
Mikele egi, 69, 20009 San
Sebas ian, ES
[email p o ec ed]
KEYWORDS:
Synonyms; Homog aphs;
Double-mapping wo ds;
Bilingualism; C oss- o wi hin-
language ans e
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Ma in, C. D., Pas u eau, R.,
Ke , E., & de B uin, A. (2024).
P ocessing o Synonyms and
Homog aphs in Bilingual and
Monolingual Speake s. Jou nal
o Cogni ion, 7(1): 4, pp. 1–19.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5334/
joc.329
P ocessing o Synonyms and
Homog aphs in Bilingual
and Monolingual Speake s
CLARA D. MARTIN
ROMAIN PASTUREAU
EMILIA KERR
ANGELA DE BRUIN
ABSTRACT
Bilinguals ha e long-las ing expe ience wi h c oss-language double-mappings (i.e.,
ansla ion equi alen s and in e lingual homog aphs (o alse iends)). Conside ing his,
we examined whe he bilinguals di e om monolinguals in wi hin-language double-
mapping (i.e., synonyms and homog aphs) p ocessing. Ac oss wo expe imen s, we
compa ed pe o mances om Spanish monolinguals and Spanish-Basque bilinguals
on a beha io al pic u e-wo d ma ching ask. The wo ds we e all p esen ed in Spanish,
he na i e language o all pa icipan s. Pa icipan s esponded o synonyms and
homog aphs (bo h double-mappings) o single-mappings (con ols). The eac ion
imes in bo h expe imen s showed clea and signi ican cos s in p ocessing wi hin-
language double-mapping s imuli, as well as in insic di e ences in p ocessing
homog aphs e sus synonyms. Howe e , hese e ec s did no di e be ween
bilinguals and monolinguals. The p esen indings hus sugges ha he bilinguals’
ex ensi e expe ience wi h c oss-linguis ic double-mappings does no ans e on o
wi hin-language double-mapping p ocessing.
*Au ho a ilia ions can be ound in he back ma e o his a icle
2Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Mos languages in he wo ld con ain bo h single-mappings (one wo d e e ing o one concep )
and double-mapping wo ds (he ea e wi hin-language double-mappings), commonly called
synonyms and homog aphs. 2:1 double-mapping wo ds, o synonyms, a e wo (o mo e) wo ds
ha mean exac ly o nea ly he same. Fo ins ance, in English he wo ds ‘p esen ’ and ‘gi ’
bo h e e o he concep o a hing gi en willingly o someone wi hou paymen . In con as ,
homog aphs, 1:2 double-mapping wo ds, e e o wo (o mo e) wo ds in he same language
ha a e spelled he same way bu ha e di e en meanings. Fo example, in English he wo d
‘ba ’ e e s o mul iple concep s, namely a noc u nal lying animal and a ool o play baseball
(“homog aphs”). While monolinguals only expe ience hese double mappings in one language,
bilinguals ha e double mappings (mul iple wo ds in mul iple languages) o almos all concep s.
The wo expe imen s o he p esen p ojec he e o e aimed a explo ing whe he bilinguals
di e om monolinguals in hei p ocessing o double-mapping wo ds in one language because
o hei expe ience wi h double-mappings ac oss languages.
Se e al p e ious s udies ha e e ealed a cos (i.e., slowe and mo e e o p one esponses)
in double-mapping wo d p ocessing as compa ed o single-mapping wo ds (B i , Fe a a &
Mi man, 2016; Rodd, Gaskell & Ma slen-Wilson, 2002; Hino, Lupke & Pexman, 2002; Peche ,
2001). Fo ins ance, Rodd and colleagues (2002) showed in a se ies o h ee lexical decision
expe imen s ha homog aphs a e ecognized mo e slowly han single-mapping wo ds,
showing ha compe i ion be ween he di e en (un ela ed) meanings o homog aphs slows
down hei p ocessing. As o synonym p ocessing, B i and colleagues (2016) showed ha
wo d p oduc ion in a pic u e-naming ask was less accu a e and slowe o synonyms ela i e
o single-mapping con ol wo ds. This e ec is explained by a slowed down lexical selec ion o
p oduc ion when he e is lexical compe i ion (i.e., a ious lexical en ies ac i a ed by a pic u e/
concep ). This is u he suppo ed by Hino and colleagues (2002) showing ha esponses a e
also slowe , in lexical decision and naming asks, o wo ds wi h many synonyms as compa ed
o ew synonyms.
Thus, double-mapping wo ds appea o be p ocessed di e en ly han single-mapping wo ds
because o he compe i ion ac oss concep s (in he case o homog aphs) o lexical en ies (in
he case o synonyms). Impo an ly, howe e , homog aph and synonym p ocessing has been
explo ed mainly in monolinguals so a , namely in pa icipan s who speak only one language
luen ly.
Ye , bilinguals a e highly used o double-mappings in hei daily li e. This is especially ue i we
conside ea ly highly-p o icien bilinguals who speak wo languages a a na i e-like le el and
use bo h languages equen ly. Fo ea ly highly-p o icien bilinguals, mos (i no all) wo ds a e
double-mapping wo ds, c oss-linguis ically. In ac , mos concep s a e linked, in he bilingual
b ain, o a wo d in hei i s language (L1) and ano he one in hei second language (L2).
Fo ins ance, a Spanish-English bilingual speake has a double-mapping ep esen a ion o
he concep o ‘i em o u ni u e o sleep on’: “bed” in English and “cama” in Spanish (i.e.,
2 wo ds o 1 concep ; ansla ion equi alen s). Thus, mos wo ds a e c oss-linguis ic 2:1
double-mapping wo ds o bilingual speake s (i.e., equi alen s o wi hin-language synonyms
bu c oss-linguis ically). Fu he mo e, in e lingual homog aphs – also called alse iends – a e
qui e common, a leas in some closely- ela ed pai s o languages. In e lingual homog aphs
a e wo ds ha co espond o di e en concep s in he L1 and he L2. Fo example, “ una” e e s
o a so o ish in English and a so o ui in Spanish. Thus, some wo ds a e c oss-linguis ic 1:2
double-mapping wo ds o bilingual speake s (i.e., equi alen s o wi hin-language homog aphs
bu c oss-linguis ically).
Gi en he s ong p e alence o c oss-language double-mappings in ea ly highly-p o icien
bilingual language use, he main ques ion o he p ojec was he ollowing: Do bilinguals di e
om monolinguals in how hey p ocess wi hin-language double-mappings because o he
p e alence o , and hei expe ience wi h, c oss-language double-mappings in hei daily li e?
P ocessing o in e language homog aphs (i.e., alse iends) and ansla ion equi alen s ha e
been widely s udied in he bilingual lexical access/memo y li e a u e (see o ins ance Al a iba,
1992; Dijks a, G ainge & Van Heu en, 1999; Ge a d & Sca bo ough, 1989; G ainge & F enck-
Mes e, 1998; Von S udni z & G een, 2002), bu he e a e s ill only ew s udies on he p ocessing
3Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
o wi hin-language homog aphs and synonyms in bilinguals. Only a ew ecen s udies ha e
compa ed wi hin-language homog aph p ocessing in bilinguals and monolinguals, in a
sen ence con ex . The goal o hose s udies was o explo e whe he bilinguals di e ed om
monolinguals in hei capaci y o inhibi ing he inapp op ia e meaning o a homog aph based
on he sen ence con ex (Kousaie, Lalibe é, López Zunini, & Tale , 2015; Paap & Liu, 2014). In
Kousaie e al. (2015) o ins ance, pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h homog aphs in sen ence
inal-posi ion (e.g., “The doc o asked he o s ep on o he scale.”) ollowed by con ex ually-
app op ia e a ge wo ds – balance – o con ex ually-inapp op ia e a ge wo ds – skin –.
Pa icipan s had o pe o m a sen ence- a ge ela edness judgemen . I bilinguals di e ed
om monolinguals in inhibi ing he inapp op ia e meaning, hey would di e in pe o mance
when judging he ela edness be ween he sen ence and he con ex ually-inapp op ia e
a ge . Despi e some g oup di e ences in elec ophysiological da a in Kousaie e al. (2015)’s
s udy, nei he Paap and Liu (2014) no Kousaie e al. (2015) obse ed signi ican beha io al
di e ences be ween monolinguals and bilinguals.
Howe e , li e a u e on he acquisi ion o wi hin-language double-mapping wo d p ocessing,
bo h in e ms o synonym and homog aph acquisi ion, sugges s ha he e migh be bilingual-
monolingual di e ences. Those lea ning s udies usually use c oss-si ua ional s a is ical lea ning
pa adigms (CSSL; Smi h & Yu, 2008; Yu & Smi h, 2007) in which pa icipan s implici ly lea n
each objec ’s name(s) by epea edly seeing he objec in conjunc ion wi h dis inc o he labels.
Al hough he e a e inconsis en esul s in he li e a u e, some s udies ha e shown ha bilingual
adul s ou pe o m monolinguals in lea ning no el 2:1 mappings: he lea ning o wo di e en
label names o he same no el objec (s eepe lea ning cu e and/o g ea e p o iciency a
es ; Beni ez, Yu o sky & Smi h, 2016; Chan & Monaghan, 2019; bu see Aguas i as & Ca ei as,
2021 o no di e ence be ween bilinguals and monolinguals in simila se ings).
The e is also p e ious e idence o a bilingual ad an age in lea ning 1:2 mappings in adul s,
i.e., lea ning o associa e one no el label o wo di e en no el objec s. Poepsel and Weiss
(2016) showed, in a CSSL expe imen , ha bilinguals lea ned no el 1:2 mappings as e and
be e han monolinguals (bu see Aguas i as & Ca ei as, 2021 o no bilingual-monolingual
di e ence).
These lea ning s udies end o sugges ha bilingual adul s bene i om as e and/o be e
lea ning o no el double-mappings, which is in line wi h o he s udies on mu ual exclusi i y and
i s lexible use in young bilingual child en. Fo ins ance, Kalashniko a and colleagues (2015)
showed ha bilingual child en end o accep mul iple-mappings (i.e., lexical o e lap) o a
highe le el han monolingual child en (Kalashniko a, Ma ock, Monaghan, 2015).
To summa ize, in he monolingual li e a u e, he e is p e ious e idence ha monolinguals
a e slowe o p ocess exis ing wi hin-language double-mapping wo ds (i.e., synonyms and
homog aphs) as compa ed o single-mapping wo ds. In he bilingual li e a u e, he e is
e idence ha bilinguals ou pe o m monolinguals in lea ning no el wi hin-language double-
mappings. Gi en ha bilinguals a e highly used o p ocessing double-mappings ac oss
languages (i.e., ansla ion equi alen s and in e lingual homog aphs), we explo ed whe he
bilinguals ou pe o m monolinguals in he p ocessing o exis ing wi hin-language double-
mappings (and no only in lea ning no el ones). We p esen wo expe imen s, bo h examining
how bilinguals and monolinguals p ocess homog aphs and synonyms, wi h some di e ences in
he ma e ial, p ocedu e and pa icipan s. In bo h expe imen s, we expec ed all pa icipan s o
be slowe o p ocess double-mappings as compa ed o single-mappings (Peche , 2001; Rodd e
al., 2002). Gi en he p e alence o double-mapping p ocessing in bilinguals’ daily li e, and gi en
hei ou pe o mance in lea ning no el double-mappings ela i e o monolinguals (Beni ez e
al., 2016; Chan & Monaghan, 2019; Poepsel & Weiss, 2016), we expec ed he cos in p ocessing
double-mappings o be educed in bilinguals as compa ed o monolinguals.
2. EXPERIMENT 1
2.1. INTRODUCTION
In Expe imen 1, we compa ed monolinguals and bilinguals on a beha io al pic u e-wo d
ma ching ask. Pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h one wo d and one pic u e and had o decide
as as as possible i he wo d and pic u e ma ched. Wo ds we e p esen ed in Spanish, he
4Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
na i e language o all pa icipan s. Wo ds could be synonyms, homog aphs ( wo ypes o
double-mappings), o single-mappings (as con ols). We analyzed eac ion imes in he pic u e-
wo d ma ching ask o each mapping (double- e sus single-mappings) and pe o mance was
compa ed ac oss he wo g oups (monolinguals and bilinguals).
Fi s , we expec ed all pa icipan s o espond mo e slowly o double- han single-mappings (i.e.,
main e ec o mapping), as p e iously shown in monolingual popula ions (B i e al., 2016;
Peche , 2001; Rodd e al., 2002). We will e e o his as he double-mapping cos . Second, ou
main hypo hesis was ha bilinguals would show a smalle double-mapping cos (i.e., smalle
cos in p ocessing double- as compa ed o single-mappings) as compa ed o monolinguals.
We expec ed his bilingual e ec o be mainly obse ed o 2:1 mappings (i.e., synonyms) since
hose a e he mos common double-mappings encoun e ed by bilinguals in c oss-language
si ua ions (i.e., ansla ion equi alen s exis o almos all wo ds while in e lingual homog aphs
exis o some bu no all wo ds).
We also included p esen a ion o de in he analysis, since each i em was p esen ed wice
du ing he expe imen . Each pic u e ela ed o a synonym was p esen ed once associa ed o
each wo d (e.g., pic u e o an oli e was p esen ed once oge he wi h he wo d ‘oli a’ and
once wi h he wo d ‘acei una’ [bo h wo ds meaning ‘oli e’ in Spanish]). Each homog aph
was p esen ed once wi h each o i s associa ed meanings (e.g., he wo d ‘banco’ [meaning
‘bench’ and ‘bank’] was p esen ed once oge he wi h he pic u e o he sea and once wi h
he pic u e o he inancial ins i u ion). Single-mapping wo ds (con ols) we e p esen ed wice
he same. We expec ed a signi ican e ec o p esen a ion o de , mainly o con ol wo ds,
wi h pa icipan s being as e in he ma ching ask du ing he second p esen a ion o a same
pic u e/wo d. Fo he double-mappings we expec ed pa icipan s o be as e he second ime
only i he i s p esen a ion o he o he wo d/concep did no p o ide addi ional con lic a
he second p esen a ion ime. Because bilinguals a e highly used o double-mappings, i migh
be he case ha hey a e as e han monolinguals o accep a ma ch wi h he new meaning/
wo d a e ha ing p ocessed he o he meaning/wo d i s . In such a case, we would expec an
in e ac ion be ween p esen a ion o de and g oup.
Finally, we asked each pa icipan , a he end o he expe imen , o indica e hei p e e ence o
each o he wo synonyms associa ed o he same pic u e (e.g., whe he hey p e e ed “so a”
o “couch”) and o each o he wo meanings associa ed o a homog aph (e.g., whe he , o
hem, “ba ” was mo e s ongly associa ed wi h he ool o animal). We included p e e ence
in he analysis, and expec ed pa icipan s o be as e o espond when p esen ed wi h hei
p e e ed pic u e/wo d.
2.2. METHODS
Pa icipan s
Two g oups o pa icipan s we e ec ui ed om he BCBL pa icipan da abase: 13 Spanish-
Basque bilinguals (mean age = 25.8, SD = 4.68; 1 male) and 11 Spanish unc ional monolinguals
(mean age = 24.2, SD = 4.69; 1 male).1 Monolingual pa icipan s we e unc ional monolinguals
in he sense ha hey did no use ano he language han Spanish in hei e e yday li e. We will
e e o hem as “monolinguals”.
All pa icipan s we e assessed on hei language p o iciency, use and exposu e in Spanish,
Basque and English. Pa icipan s we e asked o a e on a scale om 0 o 100% how o en hey
we e exposed o each language, as well as o p o ide hei age o acquisi ion. The objec i e
assessmen p ocedu e was pa o he BEST es (de B uin, Ca ei as & Duñabei a, 2017).
Pa icipan s we e es ed on a pic u e naming ask p o iding an objec i e a ing o p o iciency
on a 0–65 scale and on he adap a ion o he LexTale ask o Spanish, Basque and English,
p o iding a pe cen age o co ec lexical decisions (see Table S1 in supplemen a y ma e ial).
Bilingual pa icipan s we e all ea ly bilinguals (bo h languages acqui ed be o e he age o 3),
highly-p o icien in bo h languages, and used bo h languages on a daily basis (see Table S1).
Monolingual pa icipan s could only speak Spanish luen ly, which was lea ned om bi h,
and hei knowledge o Basque was minimal and la ely acqui ed. Despi e calling hose g oups
1 No e ha he sample size was low in Expe imen 1 because i was an ini ial expe imen wi h limi ed access
o monolingual pa icipan s. Expe imen 2 (see below) used a la ge sample size o eplica e Expe imen 1.
5Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
monolinguals (Spanish speake s) and bilinguals (Spanish-Basque speake s), all pa icipan s
knew some English, which was una oidable gi en he p e alence o English lea ning a school.
S ill, he wo g oups we e ma ched on age o acquisi ion (p = .98) and le el in English (BEST:
p = .06; LexTale: p = .35), which was kep as low as possible (low o in e media e le els; see
Table S1). Some monolingual pa icipan s epo ed some knowledge o ano he language
(Ge man, F ench o I alian). Thei exposu e (3.3% SD = 5.8) and p o iciency (4.3 SD = 1.5) in
hose languages we e minimal. All pa icipan s we e bo ne and li ing in he Basque Coun y,
meaning in a bilingual en i onmen .
All pa icipan s had a leas high school educa ion le el, no neu ological, psychia ic, language
o hea ing impai men , we e igh -handed and had no mal o co ec ed o no mal ision. The
au ho s asse ha all p ocedu es con ibu ing o his wo k comply wi h he e hical s anda ds
o he ele an na ional and ins i u ional commi ees on human expe imen a ion (BCBL E hics
Re iew Boa d App o al numbe 040419SM) and wi h he Helsinki Decla a ion o 1975, as
e ised in 2008. All pa icipan s ga e hei w i en consen a he beginning o he expe imen .
S imuli
The s imuli consis ed o 60 Spanish wo ds di ided in o 4 ca ego ies: 15 homog aphs and 15
single-mapping con ol wo ds (he ea e hom-con ols), 15 synonym pai s and 15 single-
mapping con ol wo ds (he ea e syn-con ols). Wo ds ac oss he ou ca ego ies we e
ma ched on equency coun pe million (all p > .09), numbe o le e s (all p > .33), numbe o
syllables (all p > .28),2 imageabili y (all p > .28), amilia i y (all p > .52; alues we e ex ac ed
om EsPal da abase, Duchon, Pe ea, Sebas ian Galles, Ma í & Ca ei as, 2013). See Appendix
A in supplemen a y ma e ial o comple e wo d lis and Table S3 o lexical cha ac e is ics o
selec ed wo ds. None o he selec ed wo ds had a ansla ion equi alen in Basque ha was
a synonym o a homog aph. I was no possible o exclude cogna es. Howe e , we kep he
numbe o Spanish-Basque cogna es simila ac oss wo d ca ego ies (i.e., 8 Spanish-Basque
cogna es among synonyms, 10 among homog aphs, 4 among syn-con ols and 5 among
hom-con ols).3 See Appendix B in supplemen a y ma e ial o u he in o ma ion on s imulus
selec ion and a ing.
Se en y- i e g ey scale pic u es we e selec ed om he Mul iPic da abase (Duñabei ia, C epaldi,
Meye , e al., 2018) and addi ional web esou ces. Fi een pic u es depic ed he meaning o he
15 synonym pai s, 30 pic u es depic ed he meaning o he 30 con ol s imuli (15 syn-con ols
and 15 hom-con ols), and 30 pic u es depic ed he meanings o he 15 homog aphs ( wo
meanings/pic u es pe wo d).
Task and p ocedu e
Pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h s imuli consis ing o a pic u e/wo d pai and had o indica e
by bu on p ess whe he he pic u e and wo d ma ched in meaning. The ype o p esen a ion
o he pic u e/wo d pai di e ed depending on he s imulus ype: Fo synonym pai s and syn-
con ols, he pic u e was p esen ed i s ( o lea e ime o p e-ac i a ion o he wo synonyms)
and ollowed by he wo d display nex o i . Fo homog aphs and hom-con ols, he wo d
was p esen ed i s ( o lea e ime o p e-ac i a ion o he wo concep s) and ollowed by he
pic u e display nex o i . Each synonym pai was p esen ed wice: The pic u e was p esen ed
once wi h one wo d and once wi h he o he wo d (e.g., pic u e o an oli e ollowed by he
display o he wo d ‘oli a’, and same pic u e ollowed by he display o he wo d ‘acei una’
[bo h wo ds meaning ‘oli e’ in Spanish]). In o de o ma ch he numbe o epe i ions ac oss
condi ions, each syn-con ol s imulus was also p esen ed wice wi h he same pic u e and wo d
epea ed (e.g., pic u e o a b idge ollowed by he display o he wo d ‘puen e’ [meaning ‘b idge’
in Spanish], wi h he same pic u e/same wo d display used again). Each homog aph was also
p esen ed wice: One wo d p esen ed wi h a pic u e o concep 1 and hen he same wo d
p esen ed wi h a pic u e o concep 2 (e.g., wo d ‘come a’ [meaning bo h ‘come ’ and ‘ki e’ in
Spanish] ollowed by he display o he pic u e o a come , and same wo d ‘come a’ ollowed
2 Synonyms and homog aphs we e no ma ched on numbe o le e s (p = .007) and numbe o syllables (p =
.023). Impo an ly, each wo d ca ego y was ma ched wi h hei con ols on all a iables.
3 Syn-con ol and hom-con ol we e p esen ed wice du ing he expe imen (see Task and p ocedu e) and his
esul ed in a simila numbe o cogna e wo ds p esen ed in each ca ego y.
6Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
by he display o he pic u e o a ki e). Again, he hom-con ol s imuli we e also p esen ed wice
(e.g., wo d ‘u a’ [meaning ‘g ape’ in Spanish] ollowed by he display o he pic u e o a g ape,
wi h he same wo d/same pic u e display used again).
Hal o he s imuli we e ma ch ials, as p esen ed abo e in he examples, and he o he hal
consis ed o misma ch ials. Misma ch ials we e c ea ed by associa ing a pic u e and a wo d
om he lis ha had no seman ic link (e.g., pic u e o a b idge ollowed by wo d ‘acei una’; wo d
‘come a’ ollowed by he pic u e o a g ape). No e ha misma ch ials we e included as ille s
o he pu pose o he ask (ma ch/misma ch decision) and we e no ials o in e es . Thus, no
speci ic ma ching/con olling was applied when c ea ing misma ch pai s, and esponses we e
no analyzed.
In o al, pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h 120 ma ch and 120 misma ch ials. Among he 120
ma ch ials, 30 we e om he synonym ca ego y (15 pic u es p esen ed wice, once wi h each
wo d o he synonym pai ), 30 we e om he syn-con ol ca ego y (15 pic u es p esen ed wice,
associa ed o he same wo d), 30 we e om he homog aph ca ego y (15 wo ds p esen ed
wice, once wi h each pic u e depic ing each o he wo concep s), 30 we e om he hom-
con ol ca ego y (15 wo ds p esen ed wice, associa ed o he same pic u e). Fille (misma ch)
ials we e also epea ed wice and we e c ea ed ollowing he same ype o display: hal o
hem p esen ed wi h he pic u e i s and he o he hal wi h he wo d i s .
All ma ch and misma ch ials we e p esen ed in e mixed in a pseudo- andomized o de . Hal
o he pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h synonym 1 (o concep 1) i s and wi h synonym 2 (o
concep 2) second, wi h his o de e e sed o he o he hal o he pa icipan s.
Each ial s a ed wi h a ixa ion c oss o 500 ms. Depending on he condi ion, a pic u e
(synonym condi ion) o a wo d (homog aph condi ion) appea ed on he sc een. A e 1000 ms,
a wo d ( o he synonym condi ion) o a pic u e ( o he homog aph condi ion) was p esen ed
nex o he i em al eady displayed on he sc een. Pa icipan s had o p ess one o wo bu on
keys o indica e whe he pic u e and wo d ma ched o misma ched in meaning. Bo h he
pic u e and wo d emained displayed un il a esponse was made, a e which he nex ial
began ( esponse hands coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s). In case o no esponse, he
nex ial began a e 3000 ms. Pa icipan s we e gi en b eaks e e y 60 ials and he whole
expe imen las ed app oxima ely 20 minu es.
A e he main ask, pa icipan s we e asked o pe o m a sho a ing ask. Fi s , hey we e
asked o indica e which o he wo synonyms o a pai and which o he wo homog aphs
meanings hey p e e ed. To do so, hey we e p esen ed wi h a pic u e oge he wi h he wo
synonym wo ds (o wi h a wo d (homog aph) oge he wi h he wo pic u es depic ing he wo
meanings) and hey we e asked o indica e hei p e e ed wo d (o pic u e) by bu on p ess.
Da a analysis
The da a and sc ip s a e a ailable on h ps://os .io/q6cm3/. Reac ion ime (RT) da a we e
analyzed using linea mixed-e ec s analyses (R e sion 3.6.1. lme4_1.1–21, and lme TEST
3.1.3.). The analysis only included he pic u e-wo d ma ch ials, ille s (misma ch ials) we e
excluded. The RT analysis u he mo e only included co ec esponses. RT ou lie s (< 100ms o
2.5SD abo e/below he mean pe pa icipan and condi ions mapping, ype, and p esen a ion
o de , using log RTs; 0.9% o co ec esponses) we e emo ed oo (using im , G ange, 2015).
The i s analysis included language g oup (monolingual = –0.5; bilingual = 0.5), mapping
(single = –0.5; double = 0.5), ype (synonym + con ols = –0.5; homog aph + con ols = 0.5), and
p esen a ion ( i s p esen a ion = –0.5; second p esen a ion = 0.5), as well as hei in e ac ions,
as he ixed e ec s. Log- ans o med RTs we e used as he DV (all means gi en in he esul
sec ion a e based on un ans o med RTs). We s a ed wi h he ull model including in e cep s
o pa icipan s and i ems and all by-pa icipan /by-i em slopes. The ini ial model did no
con e ge. A e emo ing slopes explaining he leas amoun o a iance (s a ing wi h he by-
i em slopes), he model con e ged wi h pa icipan and i em in e cep s and all by-pa icipan
slopes apa om ype and mapping × p esen a ion.
In he second analysis we examined he ole o p e e ence (i.e., whe he a pa icipan p e e ed
he p esen ed wo d ( o synonyms) o pic u e ( o homog aphs)). This analysis only included
7Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
double mappings (as pa icipan s could no indica e a p e e ence o single mappings) and he
ixed e ec s ype, language g oup, p esen a ion o de and p e e ence (p esen ed wo d/pic u e
is no he p e e ed one = 0.5; p esen ed wo d/pic u e is he p e e ed one = -0.5). The model
con e ged wi h pa icipan and i em in e cep s and all pa icipan slopes apa om p e e ence
× p esen a ion and ype.
2.3. RESULTS
Accu acy was close o ceiling (Bilinguals M = 95.0%, SD = 2.9; Monolinguals M = 95.6%, SD =
2.1) and was no analyzed u he . Table 1 shows mean RTs by condi ion and language g oup.
The i s RT analysis showed a main e ec o mapping (β = 0.232, SE = 0.022, = 10.465, p <
0.001), e lec ing ha people esponded as e o single mappings (M = 559, SD = 104) han
o double mappings (M = 712, SD = 143). The e was also a main e ec o ype (β = 0.053, SE =
0.020, = 2.614, p = 0.011), which in e ac ed wi h mapping (β = 0.102, SE = 0.041, = 2.474,
p = 0.017). Pa icipan s showed la ge double-mapping cos s o homog aphs ela i e o hei
single-mapping con ols (Mcos = 186, SD = 66) han o synonyms (Mcos = 121, SD = 74, see
Figu e 1). The e was also a main e ec o p esen a ion o de (β = –0.059, SE = 0.020, = –3.003,
p = 0.007). Pa icipan s esponded as e he second ime an i em was p esen ed (M = 612, SD
= 113) han he i s ime (M = 652, SD =134). This in e ac ed wi h mapping (β = 0.116, SE =
0.020, = 5.766, p < 0.001). Only he single mappings bene i ed om being p esen ed a second
ime (M acili a ion = –73, SD = 51), while he double mappings did no (M acili a ion = –3.3, SD
= 72). The e we e no in e ac ions be ween p esen a ion o de and ype (β = 0.034, SE = 0.022,
= 1.558, p = 0.134) o be ween p esen a ion o de , mapping, and ype (β = 0.036, SE = 0.057,
= 0.624, p = 0.539).
BILINGUALS MONOLINGUALS
Fi s p esen a ion
Homog aphs 731 (201) 752 (147)
Con ols homog aphs 596 (147) 594 (107)
Synonyms 693 (173) 685 (101)
Con ols synonyms 591 (122) 603 (110)
Second p esen a ion
Homog aphs 760 (164) 741 (134)
Con ols homog aphs 516 (110) 537 (86)
Synonyms 671 (173) 670 (153)
Con ols synonyms 517 (103) 526 (91)
Table 1 Means (and SDs) pe
condi ion and language g oup
in Expe imen 1.
Figu e 1 Homog aph and
synonym RT cos s ( ela i e o
hei co esponding con ol
i ems) o bilinguals and
monolinguals in Expe imen 1.
The ho izon al line shows he
median while black do s show
ou lie s.
8Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
The e was no main e ec o g oup (β = –0.017, SE = 0.081, = –0.204, p = 0.840). Bilinguals (M
= 630, SD = 138) and monolinguals (M = 635, SD = 106) did no di e in hei mean RTs. G oup
did no in e ac wi h mapping (β = 0.014, SE = 0.027, = 0.520, p = 0.608), ype (β = –0.006, SE =
0.020, = –0.294, p = 0.769), o ype and mapping (β = 0.002, SE = 0.042, = 0.048, p = 0.963).
The homog aph cos (Bilingual M = 191, SD = 72; Monolingual M = 181, SD = 60) and synonym
cos (Bilingual M = 128, SD = 85; Monolingual M = 113, SD = 60) did no di e be ween bilinguals
and monolinguals (see Figu e 1). Language g oup did no in e ac wi h p esen a ion o de
ei he (β = 0.013, SE = 0.039, = 0.342, p = 0.735, see Table 1), no wi h any o he in e ac ions
wi h p esen a ion o de (g oup × mapping × p esen a ion: β = 0.060, SE = 0.040, = 1.503, p =
0.133; g oup × ype × p esen a ion; β = 0.004, SE = 0.044, = 0.097, p = 0.924; g oup × mapping
× ype × p esen a ion: β = 0.088, SE = 0.114, = 0.770, p = 0.449).
Gi en ha we obse ed no signi ican in e ac ion be ween language g oup and mapping,
o be ween language g oup, mapping, and ype, we also conduc ed Bayesian analyses
o assess e idence o he null e ec . Fo each pa icipan , we compu ed hei homog aph
cos (RT di e ence be ween homog aphs and hei con ol wo ds) and hei synonym cos
(RT di e ence be ween synonyms and hei con ol wo ds). We hen conduc ed a Bayesian
Repea ed Measu es ANOVA using JASP 0.16.3 (keeping he de aul se ings). We epo he BF01
alues, which quan i y e idence o he null hypo hesis o e he al e na i e hypo hesis. Fo
ins ance, a alue o 3 would indica e he da a a e h ee imes mo e likely o be obse ed unde
he null han unde he al e na i e hypo hesis.
The bes model only included ype, e lec ing homog aph cos s we e la ge han synonym cos s.
Adding Language G oup o he model, o examine whe he he double-mapping cos s di e ed
be ween bilinguals and monolinguals, showed anecdo al e idence a o ing he null hypo hesis
o no language-g oup di e ence in double-mapping cos s (BF01 = 2.310, e o % = 1.499). To
examine e idence o he in e ac ion be ween language g oup and ype, we compa ed he ull
model o a model only including he wo main e ec s. Again, he e was anecdo al e idence
suppo ing he null hypo hesis (BF01 = 2.756, e o % = 1.533).
The second analysis examined he ole o p e e ence o a wo d wi hin a synonym pai o a
homog aph’s meaning (pic u e). Simila o he i s analysis, he e was a main e ec o ype (p
= 0.005) and no main e ec o language g oup o in e ac ion wi h ype (all ps > 0.5). Gi en ha
only double-mappings we e included (which, unlike single-mappings, did no di e be ween
p esen a ion o de 1 and 2), he e was no e ec o p esen a ion o de (p = 0.840). Focusing on
he ole o p e e ence, he e was a main e ec o p e e ence (β = 0.139, SE = 0.018, = 7.755,
p < 0.001). Pa icipan s esponded as e o he p e e ed meaning/wo d (M = 662; SD = 122)
han o he o he meaning/wo d (M = 767; SD = 174). This in e ac ed wi h p esen a ion o de (β
= -0.092, SE = 0.031, = –2.990, p = 0.003). The p e e ence bene i was la ge he i s ime an
i em was p esen ed (Mbene i = –133; SD = 98) han he second ime (Mbene i = -73; SD = 128).
P e e ence did no in e ac wi h ype (β = 0.034, SE = 0.038, = 0.877, p = 0.390) o wi h ype
and p esen a ion (β = –0.060, SE = 0.071, = –0.854, p = 0.403). The p e e ence bene i did no
di e signi ican ly be ween homog aphs (Mbene i = –120; SD = 134) and synonyms (Mbene i
= –98; SD = 101, see Figu e 2).
P e e ence did no in e ac wi h language g oup (β = 0.001, SE = 0.004, = 0.036, p = 0.972).
Bilinguals (Mbene i = –106; SD = 99) and monolinguals (Mbene i = –104; SD = 77) showed
a simila p e e ence bene i (see Figu e 2). P e e ence did no in e ac wi h g oup × ype (β =
–0.125, SE = 0.076, = –1.632, p = 0.118), g oup × p esen a ion (β = 0.073, SE = 0.062, = 1.175,
p = 0.240), o wi h g oup × p esen a ion × ype (β = 0.059, SE = 0.142, = 0.417, p = 0.681)
ei he .
2.4. DISCUSSION
While signi ican double-mapping cos s (slowe p ocessing when p esen ed wi h synonyms
o homog aphs ela i e o single-mappings) we e obse ed, he e was no di e ence be ween
bilinguals and monolinguals.
The signi ican double-mapping cos was in line wi h p e ious s udies showing a disad an age
in p ocessing synonyms and homog aphs as compa ed o single-mapping wo ds (B i e al.,
2016; Hino e al., 2002; Peche , 2001; Rodd e al., 2002). This disad an age o double-mapping
wo d p ocessing has been shown p e iously, o ins ance, in asks whe e he pa icipan s we e
9Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
p esen ed wi h homog aphs, con ol wo ds and pseudowo ds, and had o do a lexical decision
ask (Klepousnio ou & Baum, 2007; Rodd e al., 2002), o when p esen ed wi h pic u es depic ing
synonyms and con ols, and pe o ming a pic u e naming ask (B i e al., 2016). He e, we
show simila disad an ages in a di e en ype o ask and pa adigm, ein o cing e idence o
his double-mapping cos in wo d p ocessing.
This double-mapping cos also in e ac ed wi h s imulus ype: i was la ge o homog aphs
han o synonyms. This di e ence in he magni ude o he double-mapping cos be ween
homog aphs and synonyms migh s em om he di e ence in p ocessing: compe i ion and
in e e ence a he seman ic le el induced by homog aph p ocessing migh be mo e cos ly
in e ms o p ocessing ime han compe i ion and in e e ence a he lexical le el induced
by synonym p ocessing (see Domínguez, de Vega & Ba be , 2004 o ERP di e ences in
homog aph and synonym p ocessing in seman ic p iming). Such a disad an age in p ocessing
ime o homog aphs as compa ed o synonyms is also in line wi h beha io al da a epo ed in
Domínguez and collabo a o s (2004)’s s udy, showing a posi i e p iming e ec o synonyms
bu no o homog aphs. No e ha he p esen a ion mode di e ed o synonyms (pic u e
ollowed by wo d) and homog aphs (wo d ollowed by pic u e). This di e ence in p esen a ion
mode was una oidable o allow p e-ac i a ion o he wo synonyms when seeing a pic u e
and p e-ac i a ion o he wo meanings when eading a wo d. We canno ule ou ha he
p esen a ion mode migh ha e played a ole in he s imulus ype e ec on double-mapping
cos . Bu impo an ly, hei co esponding con ol wo ds ollowed he same o de . The e o e,
pa icipan s did no know whe he o expec single- o double-mappings o any gi en
p esen a ion o de .
Fu he mo e, pa icipan s we e as e o p ocess an i em when i was p esen ed he second
ime, bu his ad an age was only p esen o single-mappings and no o double-mappings.
This epe i ion ad an age migh be simila o he classical epe i ion e ec : Pa icipan s a e
be e and as e o p ocess a s imulus when i is epea ed (in wo d and pic u e iden i ica ion,
Du so & Johnson, 1979; Mo on, 1979; lexical decision, Salasoo, Shi in & Feus el, 1985). He e, i
is impo an o keep in mind ha s imuli in i s and second p esen a ion we e s ic ly iden ical
o single-mapping (con ol) i ems: i he pic u e/wo d pai o a pineapple was p esen ed
once, he exac same pai was p esen ed he second ime. As o double-mapping i ems, he
epe i ion was no s ic ly iden ical: i a pic u e o an oli e was p esen ed oge he wi h he wo d
‘acei una’, he second p esen a ion con ained he same pic u e p esen ed he i s ime, bu
now shown wi h he o he synonym (i.e., ‘oli a’ in his example). Simila ly, i he wo d ‘come a’
was displayed oge he wi h he pic u e o a come , he second p esen a ion con ained he
same wo d p esen ed a i s , bu associa ed wi h he pic u e o a ki e. This is likely o explain
he la ge epe i ion ad an age o single- as compa ed o double-mappings.
Figu e 2 P e e ence bene i s
(i.e., as e RTs o p e e ed
wo ds/meanings ela i e o
he o he wo d/meaning) o
bilinguals and monolinguals
and o homog aphs and
synonyms in Expe imen
1. Nega i e sco es e lec a
bene i in p ocessing ime
when seeing he p e e ed
wo d o meaning. The
ho izon al line shows he
median while black do s show
ou lie s.
16Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
when i em ep esen a ions ge consolida ed and equen ly used on a daily basis, as is he
case o (wi hin-language) synonyms and homog aphs. This assump ion is consis en wi h a
ecen s udy highligh ing di e ences when bilinguals and monolinguals a e es ed on amilia
o no el wo ds (Mo ini & Newman, 2020). Mo ini and Newman (2020) es ed monolinguals
and bilinguals in a wo d iden i ica ion ask in noise, wi h wo ds being amilia (in ask 1) o
newly lea ned wo ds (in ask 2). Bilinguals we e less accu a e han monolinguals in amilia
wo d iden i ica ion in noise. Howe e , his disad an age disappea ed when he ask had
o be pe o med on no el wo ds. In line wi h his pa e n, bilingualism migh come wi h a
bene i in p ocessing newly acqui ed wo ds, bu no in p ocessing amilia wo ds. This would be
consis en wi h bilinguals ou pe o ming monolinguals in no el double-mapping wo d lea ning
bu no (anymo e) in amilia wi hin-language double-mapping wo ds such as homog aphs
and synonyms.
The p esen indings hus sugges ha he bilingual’s ex ensi e expe ience wi h c oss-linguis ic
double-mappings does no ans e on o wi hin-language double-mapping p ocessing. This
s a emen nicely aligns wi h p e ious wo k showing simila lack o ans e om c oss- o
wi hin-language p ocessing: In ac , Wi zel (2019) showed in a ecen s udy ha he classical
masked ansla ion p iming e ec in bilinguals (e.g., wo d ‘gi ’ being p ocessed as e when
p eceded by a masked p esen a ion o he p ime ‘ egalo’ [gi in Spanish] as compa ed o
an un ela ed p ime) was no eplica ed when es ing masked synonym p iming (e.g., ‘gi ’
p eceded by he p ime ‘p esen ’). Ou esul s, oge he wi h his p e ious inding, end o
sugges ha c oss-linguis ic compe ences/e ec s in bilinguals do no necessa ily ans e o
o impac wo d p ocessing wi hin he na i e language. Bilinguals, when hey ha e o ecognize
o p oduce a wo d ollowing a concep display (e.g., a pic u e), cons an ly ha e o selec he
app op ia e lexical i em among wo. Fo ins ance, in a Spanish con ex , he pic u e o a dog
should lead o he selec ion o he wo d “pe o” bu no “ xaku ” [meaning “dog” in Basque].
Ou main hypo hesis was ha i lexical selec ion o double-mapping wo ds is “ ained” mo e
in bilinguals, his would pe cola e in a monolingual con ex and make hem mo e e icien
in wi hin-language lexical selec ion o double-mappings, as compa ed o monolinguals. This
hypo hesis was no con i med, sugges ing ha bilinguals and monolinguals beha e simila ly in
lexical selec ion o double-mappings in he na i e language.
S ill, his esul is a odd wi h Dylman and Ba y (2018)’s s udy e ealing simila i ies in
monolingual and bilingual lexical selec ion: The au ho s showed ha , in speech p oduc ion,
bilinguals we e as e o p oduce wo ds in hei second (weake ) language when p imed by
hei ansla ion equi alen , and simila ly monolinguals we e as e o p oduce synonymous
al e na i e (less equen ) names when p imed by he synonym mos common name (Dylman
& Ba y, 2018). The au ho s concluded ha he e a e simila acili a o y connec ions be ween
ansla ion equi alen s in bilinguals and synonyms in monolinguals. Based on he p esen
esul s, we a gue ha he e migh be simila acili a o y connec ions be ween ansla ion
equi alen s in bilinguals and synonyms in monolinguals, bu no simila acili a o y e ec s
wi hin bilingual pa icipan s, o bo h ansla ion equi alen and synonym p iming. I migh also
be ha c oss-linguis ic acili a o y e ec s pe cola e o wi hin-language p ocessing o wo d
p oduc ion bu no pe cep ion. Fu he s udies a e needed o econcile hose di e en aspec s
and appa en ly con adic o y indings on c oss- and wi hin-language acili a ion p ocessing in
bilingual speake s.
To conclude, he wo expe imen s epo ed he e show clea and signi ican cos s in p ocessing
double-mapping as compa ed o single-mapping i ems, as well as in insic di e ences in
p ocessing homog aphs e sus synonyms. Howe e , we did no obse e any signi ican
di e ence in he way monolinguals and bilinguals p ocess double-mapping i ems, despi e hei
p e alence in bilinguals’ li e due o he cons an usage o ansla ion equi alen s o he same
concep and equen encoun e o in e lingual homog aphs. Those esul s do no suppo
he hypo hesis ha a bilingual’s ex ensi e expe ience wi h c oss-linguis ic double-mappings
ans e s on o wi hin-language double-mapping p ocessing.
DATA ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT
The da a ha suppo he indings o his s udy a e openly a ailable in h ps://os .io/q6cm3/.
The s imuli a e p o ided in he appendices.
17Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
ADDITIONAL FILES
The addi ional iles o his a icle can be ound as ollows:
• Supplemen a y Ma e ial. Tables S1 o S4. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5334/joc.329.s1
• Appendix. Appendixes A o D. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5334/joc.329.s2
ETHICS AND CONSENT
All p ocedu es con ibu ing o his wo k comply wi h he e hical s anda ds o he ele an
na ional and ins i u ional commi ees on human expe imen a ion (BCBL E hics Re iew Boa d
App o al numbe s 040419SM and 191119SM) and wi h he Helsinki Decla a ion o 1975, as
e ised in 2008. All pa icipan s ga e hei w i en consen a he beginning o he expe imen s.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The au ho s would like o hank Ma isa Ab il, I zia Bas e a, Ana Collados, Ainhoa Eguigu en,
Ame s Esnal, Joana Izu ie a, Manex Le e and Ike O eiza o hei con ibu ion o he
de elopmen o his p ojec . We would also like o hank he pa icipan s o hei ime.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This esea ch was suppo ed by he Basque Go e nmen h ough he BERC 2022–2025 p og am
and by he Spanish S a e Resea ch Agency h ough BCBL Se e o Ochoa excellence acc edi a ion
CEX2020-001010-S. CDM ecei ed unding om he Eu opean Resea ch Council (ERC) unde he
Eu opean Union’s Ho izon 2020 esea ch and inno a ion p og amme (G an Ag eemen No:
819093), he Spanish Minis y o Economy and Compe i i eness (PID2020-113926GB-I00), and
he Basque Go e nmen (PIBA18_29).
COMPETING INTERESTS
The au ho s ha e no compe ing in e es s o decla e.
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Cla a D. Ma in o cid.o g/0000-0003-2701-5045
Basque cen e on Cogni ion, B ain and Language, San Sebas ian, ES; Ike basque – Basque Founda ion o
Science, Bilbao, ES
Romain Pas u eau o cid.o g/0000-0002-1468-9801
Basque cen e on Cogni ion, B ain and Language, San Sebas ian, ES; Uni e sidad del País Vasco/Eusjkal
He iko Unibe si a ea, San Sebas ián, ES
Emilia Ke
LPL – Aix-Ma seille Uni e si y, Aix-en-P o ence, FR
Angela de B uin o cid.o g/0000-0001-8326-0294
Depa men o Psychology – Uni e si y o Yo k, Yo k, UK
REFERENCES
Aguas i as, J. A., & Ca ei as, M. (2021). Does bilingual expe ience in luence s a is ical language
lea ning? Psya xi .com. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.31234/os .io/86x g
Al a iba, J. (1992). The ep esen a ion o ansla ion equi alen s in bilingual memo y. In R. J. Ha is (Ed.),
Cogni i e p ocessing in bilinguals (pp. 157–174). Ams e dam: Else ie . DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/
S0166-4115(08)61493-4
Beni ez, V. L., Yu o sky, D., & Smi h, L. B. (2016). Compe i ion be ween mul iple wo ds o a e e en
in c oss-si ua ional wo d lea ning. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 90, 31–48. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.004
Bice, K., & K oll, J. F. (2019). English only? Monolinguals in linguis ically di e se con ex s ha e an
edge in language lea ning. B ain and language, 196, 104644. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
bandl.2019.104644
18Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
B i , A. E., Fe a a, C., & Mi man, D. (2016). Dis inc E ec s o Lexical and Seman ic Compe i ion du ing
Pic u e Naming in Younge Adul s, Olde Adul s, and People wi h Aphasia. F on ie s in psychology, 7,
813. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2016.00813
B ysbae , M., & S e ens, M. (2018). Powe Analysis and E ec Size in Mixed E ec s Models: A Tu o ial.
Jou nal o Cogni ion, 1(1). DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5334/joc.10
Chan, J., & Monaghan, P. (2019). Simula ing Bilingual Wo d Lea ning: Monolingual and Bilingual Adul s’
Use o C oss-Si ua ional S a is ics. P oceedings o he 41s Annual Mee ing o he Cogni i e Science
Socie y (pp. 1472–1478).
de B uin, A., Ca ei as, M., & Duñabei ia, J. A. (2017). The BEST da ase o language p o iciency. F on ie s
in Psychology, 8, 522. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2017.00522
de Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A Ja aSc ip lib a y o c ea ing beha io al expe imen s in a Web b owse .
Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 47, 1–12. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
Dijks a, A., G ainge , J., & Van Heu en, W. J. B. (1999). Recogni ion o cogna es and in e lingual
homog aphs: The neglec ed ole o phonology. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 41, 496–518. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
Domínguez, A., de Vega, M., & Ba be , H. (2004). E en - ela ed b ain po en ials elici ed by mo phological,
homog aphic, o hog aphic, and seman ic p iming. Jou nal o Cogni i e Neu oscience, 16, 598–608.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1162/089892904323057326
Duchon, A., Pe ea, M., Sebas ian Galles, N., Ma í, A., & Ca ei as, M. (2013). EsPal: One-s op shopping
o Spanish wo d p ope ies. Beha io esea ch me hods, 45(4), 1246–58. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1
Duñabei ia, J. A., C epaldi, D., Meye , A. S., New, B., Plia sikas, C., Smolka, E., e al. (2018). Mul iPic:
a s anda dized se o 750 d awings wi h no ms o six Eu opean languages. Qua e ly Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology, 71, 808–816. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310261
Du so, F. T., & Johnson, M. K. (1979). Facili a ion in naming and ca ego izing epea ed pic u es and
wo ds. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Human Lea ning & Memo y, 5, 449–459. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/0278-7393.5.5.449
Dylman, A. S., & Ba y, C. (2018). When ha ing wo names acili a es lexical selec ion: Simila esul s
in he pic u e-wo d ask om ansla ion dis ac o s in bilinguals and synonym dis ac o s in
monolinguals. Cogni ion, 171, 151–171. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cogni ion.2017.09.014
Ge a d, L. D., & Sca bo ough, D. L. (1989). Language-speci ic lexical access o homog aphs by bilinguals.
Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y and Cogni ion, 15, 305–313. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.305
Gollan, T. H., Mon oya, R. I., Ce a, C., & Sando al, T. C. (2008). Mo e use almos always means a smalle
equency e ec : Aging, bilingualism, and he weake links hypo hesis. Jou nal o memo y and
language, 58(3), 787–814. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.001
G ainge , J., & F enck-Mes e, C. (1998). Masked p iming by ansla ion equi alen s in
p o icien bilinguals. Language & Cogni i e P ocesses, 13, 601–623. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/016909698386393
Hino, Y., Lupke , S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambigui y and synonymy e ec s in lexical decision,
naming, and seman ic ca ego iza ion asks: In e ac ions be ween o hog aphy, phonology, and
seman ics. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 28(4), 686–713.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.686
Kalashniko a, M., Ma ock, K., & Monaghan, P. (2015). The e ec s o linguis ic expe ience on he lexible
use o mu ual exclusi i y in wo d lea ning. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 18, 626–638. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1366728914000364
Klepousnio ou, E., & Baum, S. (2007). Disambigua ing he ambigui y ad an age e ec in wo d
ecogni ion: An ad an age o polysemous bu no homonymous wo ds. Jou nal o Neu olinguis ics,
20, 1–24. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jneu oling.2006.02.001
Kousaie, S., Lalibe é, C., López Zunini, R., & Tale , V. (2015). A beha io al and elec ophysiological
in es iga ion o he e ec o bilingualism on lexical ambigui y esolu ion in young adul s. F on ie s in
human neu oscience, 9, 682. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ nhum.2015.00682
Lange, K., Kühn, S., & File ich, E. (2015). “Jus Ano he Tool o Online S udies” (JATOS): An easy solu ion
o se up and managemen o web se e s suppo ing online s udies. PLoS ONE, 10, e0130834. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1371/jou nal.pone.0130834
Mo ini, G., & Newman, R. S. (2020). Monolingual and bilingual wo d ecogni ion and wo d
lea ning in backg ound noise. Language and Speech, 63(2), 381–403. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0023830919846158
Mo on, J. (1979). Facili a ion in wo d ecogni ion: Expe imen s causing change in he logogen model. In
P. A. Kole s, M. A. W ols ad, & H. Bouma (Eds.), P ocessing o isible language. New Yo k: Plenum. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-1-4684-0994-9_15
Paap, K. R., & Liu, Y. (2014). Con lic esolu ion in sen ence p ocessing is he same o bilinguals
and monolinguals: The ole o con i ma ion bias in es ing o bilingual ad an ages. Jou nal o
Neu olinguis ics, 27(1), 50–74. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jneu oling.2013.09.002
19Ma in e al.
Jou nal o Cogni ion
DOI: 10.5334/joc.329
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Ma in, C. D., Pas u eau, R.,
Ke , E., & de B uin, A. (2024).
P ocessing o Synonyms and
Homog aphs in Bilingual and
Monolingual Speake s.
Jou nal
o Cogni ion,
7(1): 4, pp. 1–19.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5334/
joc.329
Submi ed: 01 Ma ch 2023
Accep ed: 24 Oc obe 2023
Published: 09 Janua y 2024
COPYRIGHT:
© 2024 The Au ho (s). This
is an open-access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms
o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional
License (CC-BY 4.0), which
pe mi s un es ic ed use,
dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion
in any medium, p o ided he
o iginal au ho and sou ce
a e c edi ed. See h p://
c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Jou nal o Cogni ion is a pee -
e iewed open access jou nal
published by Ubiqui y P ess.
Pas u eau, R., de B uin, A., & Ma in, C. D. (in p epa a ion). One Wo d, Two Meanings; Two Wo ds, One
Meaning; A Da abase o Imageable Homog aphs and Synonyms in Spanish.
Peche , D. (2001). Pe cep ion is a wo-way junc ion: Feedback seman ics in wo d ecogni ion.
Psychonomic Bulle in & Re iew, 8, 545–551. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03196190
Poepsel, T. J., & Weiss, D. J. (2016). The in luence o bilingualism on s a is ical wo d lea ning. Cogni ion,
152, 9–19. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cogni ion.2016.03.001
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Ma slen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making Sense o Seman ic Ambigui y: Seman ic
Compe i ion in Lexical Access. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 46, 245–266. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
Sa an, J. R., Newpo , E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A., & Ba ueco, S. (1997). Inciden al Language
Lea ning: Lis ening (and Lea ning) Ou o he Co ne o You Ea . Psychological Science, 8(2), 101–105.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997. b00690.x
Salasoo, A., Shi in, R. M., & Feus el, T. C. (1985). Building pe manen memo y codes: Codi ica ion and
epe i ion e ec s in wo d iden i ica ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Gene al, 114, 50–77. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037//0096-3445.114.1.50
Smi h, L., & Yu, C. (2008). In an s apidly lea n wo d- e e en mappings ia c oss-si ua ional s a is ics.
Cogni ion, 106(3), 1558–1568. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cogni ion.2007.06.010
Van Hell, J. G., & Dijks a, T. (2002). Fo eign language knowledge can in luence na i e language
pe o mance in exclusi ely na i e con ex s. Psychonomic bulle in & e iew, 9(4), 780–789. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03196335
Von S udni z, R. E., & G een, D. W. (2002). In e lingual homog aph in e e ence in Ge man-English
bilinguals: I s modula ion and locus o con ol. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 5, 1–23. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1366728902000111
Wi zel, N. (2019). Can masked synonym p iming eplica e masked ansla ion p iming? Qua e ly Jou nal
o Expe imen al Psychology, 72(10), 2554–2562. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1747021819848683
Yu, C., & Smi h, L. B. (2007). Rapid wo d lea ning unde unce ain y ia c oss-si ua ional s a is ics.
Psychological Science, 18(5), 414–420. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01915.x
