References
- 1Alexander, R. A., Barrett, G. V., Alliger, G. M., & Carson, K. P. (1986). Towards a general model of non-random sampling and the impact on population correlation: Generalizations of Berkson’s Fallacy and restriction of range. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 39(1), 90–105. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1986.tb00849.x
- 2Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Treiman, R., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193014
- 3Bobko, P. (1983). An analysis of correlations corrected for attenuation and range restriction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 584–589. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.584
- 4Brenders, P., Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2011). Word recognition in child second language learners: Evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 383–396. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.012
- 5Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
- 6Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). Cognate effects in sentence context depend on word class, L2 proficiency, and task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1214–1241. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.853090
- 7Caramazza, A., & Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13(4), 212–214. DOI: 10.3758/BF03335062
- 8Comesaña, M., Ferré, P., Romero, J., Guasch, M., Soares, A. P., & García-Chico, T. (2015). Facilitative effect of cognate words vanishes when reducing the orthographic overlap: The role of stimuli list composition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 614–635. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000065
- 9Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283–1296. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283
- 10Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish–English cognates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(3), 367–393. DOI: 10.1080/14640748608401604
- 11De Bruijn, E. R. A., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J., & Schriefers, H. J. (2001). Language context effects on interlingual homograph recognition: Evidence from event-related potentials and response times in semantic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 155–168. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728901000256
- 12De Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(2), 397–428. DOI: 10.1080/713755891
- 13De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 90–123. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90012-9
- 14Dijkstra, T., De Bruijn, E., Schriefers, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (2000). More on interlingual homograph recognition: Language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 69–78. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728900000146
- 15Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
- 16Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 284–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003
- 17Dijkstra, T., Timmermans, M., & Schriefers, H. J. (2000). On being blinded by your other language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 445–464. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2697
- 18Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 51–66. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728998000121
- 19Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663–679. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663
- 20Jared, D., & Szucs, C. (2002). Phonological activation in bilinguals: Evidence from interlingual homograph naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 225–239. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728902003024
- 21Kerkhofs, R., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J., & De Bruijn, E. R. A. (2006). Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Research, 1068(1), 170–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.087
- 22Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
- 23Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 533–550. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195845
- 24Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., & Michel, M. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(5), 585–611. DOI: 10.1080/01690960444000007
- 25Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics-Doklady, 10(8), 707–710.
- 26Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381–390. DOI: 10.1037/a0014875
- 27Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Cruz Martín, M. (2010). Inhibitory processes in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish–English interlexical homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 232–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.002
- 28Peeters, D., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (2013). The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 315–332. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003
- 29Poort, E. D., & Rodd, J. M. (2017, May 30). Studies of cross-lingual long-term priming. PsyArXiv. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ert8k
- 30Poort, E. D., & Rodd, J. M. (2017). The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual lexical decision is influenced by stimulus list composition. Acta Psychologica, 180, 52–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.008
- 31Poort, E. D., & Rodd, J. M. (2019). Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: Evidence from semantic relatedness tasks. PeerJ, 7:
e6725 . DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6725 - 32Poort, E. D., Warren, J. E., & Rodd, J. M. (2016). Recent experience with cognates and interlingual homographs in one language affects subsequent processing in another language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 206–212. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728915000395
- 33Qualtrics. (2015). Qualtrics Survey Software. Provo, Utah, USA: Qualtrics.
- 34Sackett, P. R., & Yang, H. (2000). Correction for range restriction: an expanded typology. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 112–118. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.112
- 35Sánchez-Casas, R. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Davis, C. W. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(4), 293–310. DOI: 10.1080/09541449208406189
- 36Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., & Grootjen, F. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 157–166. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728910000623
- 37Schulpen, B., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H. J., & Hasper, M. (2003). Recognition of interlingual homophones in bilingual auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1155–1178. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1155
- 38Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.004
- 39Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(1), 106–129. DOI: 10.1080/01690960500463920
- 40Smits, E., Martensen, H., Dijkstra, T., & Sandra, D. (2006). Naming interlingual homographs: Variable competition and the role of the decision system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(3), 281–297. DOI: 10.1017/S136672890600263X
- 41Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
- 42Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1412–1431. DOI: 10.1037/a0024492
- 43Tokowicz, 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, Instruments, & Computers, 34(3), 435–451. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195472
- 44Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(1), 88–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006
- 45Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20(8), 923–927. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02389.x
- 46Van Casteren, M., & Davis, M. (2007). Match: A program to assist in matching the conditions of factorial experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 973–978. DOI: 10.3758/BF03192992
- 47Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 193–211. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728998000352
- 48Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 431–451. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.010
- 49Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196335
- 50Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
- 51Van Heuven, W. J. B., Schriefers, H. J., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Language conflict in the bilingual brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2706–2716. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn030
- 52Von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. W. (2002). Interlingual homograph interference in German–English bilinguals: Its modulation and locus of control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 1–23. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728902000111
- 53Wikipedia. (2014). Lijst van valse vrienden. Retrieved from
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_valse_vrienden#Engels - 54Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. J. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971–979. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
- 55Yudes, C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2010). Cognate effects in bilingual language comprehension tasks. NeuroReport, 21(7), 507–512. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328338b9e1