The bilingual L2 advantage in recognition memory

Psychon Bull Rev The bilingual L2 advantage in recognition memory Wendy S. Francis E. Natalia Strobach To better understand the mechanisms by which bilingual proficiency impacts memory processes, two recognition memory experiments were conducted with matched monolingual and bilingual samples. In Experiment 1, monolingual speakers of English and Spanish studied high- and low-frequency words under full attention or cognitive load conditions. In Experiment 2, Spanish-English bilingual participants studied high- and low-frequency words under fullattention conditions in each language. For both monolinguals and bilinguals, low-frequency words were better recognized than high-frequency words. The central new findings were that bilingual recognition was more accurate in the less fluent language (L2) than in the more fluent language (L1) and that bilingual L2 recognition was more accurate than monolingual recognition. The bilingual L2 advantage parallels word frequency effects in recognition and is attributed to the greater episodic distinctiveness of L2 words, relative to L1 words. Recognition memory; Bilingualism; Word frequency; Cognitive load - Second, does recognition performance in bilinguals differ from that of monolinguals? Given previous recall results, it is tempting to assume that bilingual memory performance will always suffer deficits in the less fluent language (L2), relative to the more fluent language (L1) and relative to monolingual performance. However, predictions of bilingual performance depend on the mechanisms by which language proficiency is thought to affect memory encoding and retrieval. Two aspects of bilingual language processing are of particular relevance to memory. First, L2 processing makes greater demands on cognitive resources than does L1 processing (Abu-Rabia, 2003; Ransdell, Arecco, & Levy, 2001). This demand on cognitive resources is related to the construct of cognitive load, which has known effects on explicit memory performance. The cognitive load imposed by performing a concurrent task at study impairs both recall and recognition (e.g., Hicks & Marsh, 2000; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998). The mechanism underlying this impairment is thought to be a reduction in the use of elaborative processing (Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Perretta, & Tonev, 2000). Similarly, the cognitive load associated with processing L2 words may reduce the use of elaborative processing and thereby impair L2 recognition, relative to L1 recognition and monolingual recognition. The second relevant aspect of bilingual language processing is that L2 words are more weakly associated than L1 words with the concepts that they represent in semantic memory. This feature is incorporated in existing models of bilingual lexical processing, including the revised hierarchical model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994), the bilingual interactive activation model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002), and the inhibitory control model (Green, 1998). These associations also appear to be weaker in bilingual L1 words than in monolinguals, and a weaker-links hypothesis has been proposed as a single mechanism for bilingual/monolingual differences, bilingual proficiency effects, and word frequency effects (Gollan, Montoya, Cera, & Sandoval, 2008). Word frequency has opposite effects on recall and recognition. While highfrequency words are better recalled, low-frequency words are better recognized (Balota & Neely, 1980; Kinsbourne & George, 1974; MacLeod & Kampe, 1996; Mandler, Goodman, & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1982), exhibiting the mirror effect, both higher hit rates and lower false alarm rates. According to the source-of-activation-confusion theory (Buchler & Reder, 2007; Diana & Reder, 2006), the mirror effect arises for two reasons. First, because low-frequency words are preexperimentally associated with fewer episodic contexts, there is less contextual competition, which facilitates recollection and increases hit rates. Second, because lowfrequency words have a lower degree of strength in memory, it is less likely that a familiarity-based false alarm will occur. Similarly, L2 words are likely to have occurred in fewer episodic contexts and may therefore exhibit higher hit rates and lower false alarm rates than L1 words and words in a monolingual persons vocabulary. The cognitive load and word frequency conceptualizations of L2 memory lead to opposite predictions for recognition performance. Specifically, the cognitive load approach suggests that L2 recognition will be worse than L1 recognition, whereas the word frequency approach suggests that L2 recognition will be better than L1 recognition. The purpose of the present study is to determine which of the two conceptualizations better explains L2 performance in the context of recognition memory. One preliminary study provides some evidence for superior recognition in L2, relative to L1, following incidental encoding (Francis & Gutirrez, 2012). Specifically, an advantage in hit rates (but not false alarm rates) was observed for words studied under shallow encoding, but not under deep encoding instructions. The effects may have been underestimated because of ceiling and floor effects for hit and false alarm rates and because language dominance was self-reported. In the present study, we gave intentional learning instructions, used a more difficult recognition task, assessed language proficiency and dominance objectively, included matched English and Spanish monolingual comparison groups, and included manipulations of cognitive load and word frequency. The study was conducted on the U.S.Mexico border at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and at the neighboring Universidad Autnoma de Ciudad Jurez (UACJ) in Mexico. The city of El Paso and UTEP itself are bilingual environments in which there is ample opportunity to use English and Spanish on a daily basis. The primary purpose of Experiment 1 was to provide anchor points for monolingual performance in English and Spanish. The secondary purpose was to replicate the effects of cognitive load and word frequency on recognition memory in monolingual English-speaking and monolingual Spanishspeaking participants. That is, we wanted to ensure that the stimuli to be used in Experiment 2 would produce cognitive load and word frequency effects. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to determine whether the cognitive load or word frequency conceptualization of L2 memory would better explain recognition performance. Experiment 2 tested for the first time the effects of language proficiency and word frequency on recognition memory in bilinguals following intentional encoding. To enable comparisons between experiments and populations, participants in both experiments completed standardized language and cognitive assessments and answered questions about socioeconomic status. Experiment 1 was conducted to provide monolingual anchor points for recognition performance and to ensure that the stimuli used would indeed prod (...truncated)