Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:

The present research explores whether Korean learners of Chinese at different proficiency levels employ distinct processing strategies when processing Chinese words with identical or different orthographic representations.

Design/methodology/approach:

In this research, two experimental studies were carried out to examine how Korean learners with different Chinese language proficiency process orthography, pronunciation, and meanings of Chinese written words.

Data and analysis:

Reaction times and error rates were analyzed for each study. Revised hierarchical model (RHM) and Ontogenesis Model (OM) are the major models used to analyze and discuss the results.

Findings/conclusions:

The findings of the phonological task reveal that intermediate-level participants utilize first language mediators to access second language (L2) words, whereas high-level participants can directly activate L2 phonological representations without first language interference. Conversely, in the semantic task, participants from both proficiency levels seem to adopt the word association model regardless of orthographic representations.

Originality:

The originality of the present study lies in its examination of the processing strategies employed by Korean learners of Chinese at different proficiency levels, specifically when processing Chinese words with identical or different orthographic representations.

Significance/implications:

These findings suggest that L2 proficiency does not guarantee the elimination of native language influence on L2 lexical processing and various factors can affect L2 lexical processing. To improve L2 lexical learning, it is recommended to start language learning early, increase vocabulary size, and enhance exposure to L2 words.

Keywords

Second-language acquisition Bilingualism Bilingual mental lexicon L2 proficiency L2 lexical processing L2 lexical representations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angwin

A. J.

Phua

Copland

D. A.

(2014). Using semantics to enhance new word learning: An ERP investigation. Neuropsychologia, 59, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.002

Bordag

Gor

Opitz

(2022). Ontogenesis model of the L2 lexical representation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000250

Bordag

Opitz

Rogahn

Tschirner

(2018). The strength of meaning: Representations of new words with different properties in the L2 semantic network. The Mental Lexicon, 13, 74–104. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17005.bor

Brauer

(1998). Stroop interference in bilinguals: The role of similarity between the two languages. In Healy

A. F.

Bourne

L. E.

(Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 317–337). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Broersma

(2012). Increased lexical activation and reduced competition in second-language listening. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 1205–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.660170

Bylund

Hyltenstam

Abrahamsson

(2021). Age of acquisition —Not bilingualism —Is the primary determinant of less than nativelike L2 ultimate attainment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000188

Chen

H.-C.

(1990). Lexical processing in a non-native language effects of language proficiency and learning strategy. Memory and Cognition, 18, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213881

Daidone

Darcy

(2021). Vocabulary size is a key factor in predicting second language lexical encoding accuracy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 688356. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688356

De Groot

A. M.

Nas

G. L

. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 90–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90012-9

10.

De Groot

A. M. B

. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. Psychology Press.

11.

Dijkstra

Grainger

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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654

12.

Dijkstra

Miwa

Brummelhuis

Sappelli

Baayen

(2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003

13.

Dijkstra

Van Heuven

W. J. B.

(2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012

14.

Dijkstra

Wahl

Buytenhuijs

Van Halem

Al-Jibouri

De Korte

Rekké

(2019). Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000287

15.

Dufour

Kroll

J. F.

(1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory and Cognition, 23(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197219

16.

Flege

J. E.

Yeni-Komshian

G. H.

Liu

(1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2638

17.

Gollan

T. H.

Forster

K. I.

Frost

(1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1122–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122

18.

Gor

Cook

Bordag

Chrabaszcz

Opitz

(2021). Fuzzy lexical representations in adult second language speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 732030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732030

19.

Hartshorne

J. K.

Tenenbaum

J. B.

Pinker

(2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007

20.

Hermans

Bongaerts

De Bot

Schreuder

(1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000364

21.

Jiang

(2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied. Linguistics, 21, 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.47

22.

Jiang

(2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004047

23.

Kroll

J. F.

Curley

(1988). Lexical memory in novice bilinguals: The role of concepts in retrieving second language words. In Gruneberg

M. M.

Morris

P. E.

Snykes

R. N.

(Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 389–395). John Wiley.

24.

Kroll

J. F.

Michael

Sankaranarayanan

(1998). A model of bilingual representation and its implications for second language acquisition. In Healy

A. F.

Bourne, Jr.

L. E.

(Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 365–395). Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Kroll

J. F.

Stewart

(1994). Category interference in translation and picture- naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008

26.

Kroll

J. F.

Van Hell

J. G.

Tokowicz

Green

D. W.

(2010). The revised hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891000009X

27.

Lemhöfer

Dijkstra

(2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195845

28.

Perfetti

(2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730

29.

Potter

M. C.

K.-F.

Von Eckardt

Feldman

(1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90489-4

30.

Sunderman

Kroll

J. F.

(2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 387–422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060177

31.

Takashima

Bakker

van Hell

J. G.

Janzen

McQueen

J. M.

(2017). Interaction between episodic and semantic memory networks in the acquisition and consolidation of novel spoken words. Brain and Language, 167, 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.009

32.

Van Assche

Duyck

Gollan

T. H

. (2013). Whole-language and item-specific control in bilingual language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 1781–1792.

33.

Van 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000352

34.

Van Hell

J. G.

Dijkstra

. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196335

35.

Wang

Koda

Perfetti

C. A.

(2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00232-9

36.

Zhao

(2022). Fuzzy or clear? A computational approach towards dynamic L2 lexical-semantic representation. Frontiers in Communication, 6, Article 726443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.726443

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

Developing Chinese lexical representations in Korean learner’s mind

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:

Design/methodology/approach:

Data and analysis:

Findings/conclusions:

Originality:

Significance/implications:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material