Lexical access in L2

Abstract

Previous research on phonological priming in a Lexical Decision Task (LDT) has demonstrated that second language (L2) learners do not show inhibition typical for native (L1) speakers that results from lexical competition, but rather a reversed effect – facilitation (Gor, Cook, & Jackson, 2010). The present study investigates the source of the reversed priming effect and addresses two possible causes: a deficit in lexical representations and a processing constraint. Twenty-three advanced learners of Russian participated in two experiments. The monolingual Russian LDT task with priming addressed the processing constraint by manipulating the interstimulus interval (ISI, 350 ms and 500 ms). The translation task evaluated the robustness of lexical representations at both the phonolexical level (whole-word phonological representation) and the level of form-to-meaning mapping, thereby addressing the lexical deficit. L2 learners did not benefit from an increased ISI, indicating lack of support for the processing constraint. However, the study, found evidence for the representational deficit: when L2 familiarity with the words is controlled and L2 representations are robust, L2 learners demonstrate native-like processing accompanied by inhibition; however, when the words have fragmented (or fuzzy) representations, L2 lexical access is unfaithful and is accompanied by reduced lexical competition leading to facilitation effects.

Advanced Second Language Learners’ Perception of Lexical Tone Contrasts

“…Chrabaszcz & Gor, 2014). In such cases, words sound alike to L2 listeners, even though they are easily distinguishable to native (L1) listeners (for further discussion, see especially Broersma & Cutler, 2011;Cook & Gor, 2015;Darcy et al, 2013).…”

Quantifying contextual effects in second language processing of phonolexically ambiguous and unambiguous words

“…For example, hearing the onset pa-in "panda" activates "pencil" for Dutch listeners (Weber & Cutler, 2004) and the onset r-in "rocket" activates "locker" for Japanese listeners (Cutler, Weber, & Otake, 2006). Phonolexical ambiguity can also occur in quite distinct words due to weak and fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings in the L2 (e.g., "quarrel"-"squirrel"; Cook & Gor, 2015;Cook, Pandža, Lancaster, & Gor, 2016).…”

Phonological priming and the role of phonology in nonnative word recognition

“…However, a lack of inhibition, and even facilitation was reported for advanced L2 learners of Russian with L1 English. Importantly, nonnative facilitation was observed for less familiar low-frequency primes, which is consistent with weaker lexical competitors having underdifferentiated, or fuzzy phonolexical representations (Cook & Gor, 2015; Gor & Cook, unpublished manuscript; Gor, Cook & Jackson, 2010). 4 In particular, Cook and Gor (2015) report overall inhibition in a LDT with phonological priming in advanced L2 learners of Russian.…”

“…Importantly, nonnative facilitation was observed for less familiar low-frequency primes, which is consistent with weaker lexical competitors having underdifferentiated, or fuzzy phonolexical representations (Cook & Gor, 2015; Gor & Cook, unpublished manuscript; Gor, Cook & Jackson, 2010). 4 In particular, Cook and Gor (2015) report overall inhibition in a LDT with phonological priming in advanced L2 learners of Russian. However, when the reaction time data were reanalyzed separately for unknown, well-known and recognizable primes based on the results of a separate translation task, the trials with well-known primes continued to show inhibition, while the trials with recognizable primes showed a tendency to facilitation.…”

“…To extend the Lexical Quality hypothesis to auditory speech, given the reduced nonnative input and inefficient encoding of L2 sounds, low-frequency less familiar words are weakly entrenched and have fuzzy representations, phonolexical as well as orthographic. To test this claim, nonnative priming effects were examined in short-lag auditory priming experiments with a three-phoneme initial overlap between the prime and the target (Cook, 2012; Cook & Gor, 2015; Gor, forthcoming; Gor & Cook, unpublished manuscript; Gor, Cook & Jackson, 2010). In native speakers, these conditions lead to lexical competition between the prime and the target, and also between phonological neighbors and the target, which results in an inhibition effect.…”