An Investigation into the L2 Mental Lexicon of Chinese English Learners by Means of Word Association

Abstract

The present study employs a word association test to investigate the nature of Chinese English learners' mental lexicon by comparing the association responses of native speakers and Chinese English learners. The result shows that there are significant differences in the structure of mental lexicons between Chinese English learners and native speakers. With regard to L1 mental lexicons, Chinese English learners have poorer concentricity of association and weaker association strength. Their association is more dependent on forms. They have no established systematic and stable networks between words. The semantic network in their mental lexicon is underdeveloped. The results of the experiments have some implications for L2 vocabulary teaching and learning.

Word association research and the L2 lexicon

“…Indicative findings from category-based WA research, with examples of studies reporting them, include: In the majority of studies, paradigmatic or meaning-based responses are most prevalent, and clang or form-based responses least prevalent.The likelihood that a participant will produce a paradigmatic response or a meaning-based response is increased: if they know the cue word well enough to use it in a sentence (Wolter, 2001)if the (L2) cue word is relatively familiar (Söderman, 1993; Wolter, 2001)if they are an expert user (L1 or advanced L2) of the language of the WA task (Zareva, 2007; Jiang & Zhang, 2019)the more proficient in L2 they are (Söderman, 1993; Orita, 2002; Zareva, 2007; Zareva & Wolter, 2012; Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, 2013)if the cue words are nouns (Nissen & Henriksen, 2006)the older they are (Namei, 2004)if they are adult (Cremer, Dingshoff, de Beer, & Schoonen, 2011)if they are a heritage L2 speaker (Kim, 2013). The likelihood that a participant will produce a clang or orthographic/phonological response is increased: the younger they are (Namei, 2004)if they are using their L2 (Wolter, 2001; Namei, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Norrby & Håkansson, 2007; Hui, 2011; Jiang & Zhang, 2019)if they are learning L2 outside the target language environment (Håkansson & Norrby, 2010)the less proficient in L2 they are (Söderman, 1993; Orita, 2002; Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, 2013)if the cue word is relatively unfamiliar or newly acquired (Söderman, 1993; Wolter, 2001). The likelihood that a participant will produce a syntagmatic/collocational/position-based response is increased: if they are using their L2 (Norrby & Håkansson, 2007; Zareva, 2007; Håkansson & Norrby, 2010)if they are using their L1 (Fitzpatrick, 2006; Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011)if they are learning their L2 as a foreign rather than second language (Norrby & Håkansson, 2007)the less proficient they are (Söderman, 1993; Orita, 2002; Zareva, 2007; Zareva & Wolter, 2012; Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, 2013)if the cue words are adjectives (Nissen & Henriksen, 2006).…”

“…The likelihood that a participant will produce a clang or orthographic/phonological response is increased: the younger they are (Namei, 2004)if they are using their L2 (Wolter, 2001; Namei, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Norrby & Håkansson, 2007; Hui, 2011; Jiang & Zhang, 2019)if they are learning L2 outside the target language environment (Håkansson & Norrby, 2010)the less proficient in L2 they are (Söderman, 1993; Orita, 2002; Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, 2013)if the cue word is relatively unfamiliar or newly acquired (Söderman, 1993; Wolter, 2001). …”

“…if they are using their L2 (Wolter, 2001; Namei, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Norrby & Håkansson, 2007; Hui, 2011; Jiang & Zhang, 2019)…”

“…Fitzpatrick's system has been tweaked in subsequent attempts to address some of these weaknesses, and/or to match the system better to specific research questions. For example, Hui (2011) adds the sub-category ‘personal feelings’, Kim (2013) distinguishes between subject-verb and object-verb collocations to better fit the language of enquiry (Korean), and Fitzpatrick (2007) minimizes the dilution of data power across categories by reducing the number of sub-categories from 17 to 9. Fitzpatrick and Izura (2011) include dual-link categories, such as ‘meaning and collocation’ (e.g.…”

Modeling bilingual word associations as connected monolingual networks

“…In general, non-native speakers' responses tend to differ from those of native speakers (e.g., Wolter, 2001;Zareva, 2007;Antón-Méndez and Gollan, 2010;Hui, 2011). Non-native speakers often produce responses that are translation equivalents of responses they would give in their native language (Meara, 1978) -in other words, L1 mediates their L2 responses (Nam, 2014).…”