Mental representation of words and concepts in late multilingualism: A replication and extension of the Revised Hierarchical Model

Abstract

Speakers of multiple languages must store the respective lexical items efficiently to enable correct access. Importantly, all items must be linked to semantic information and world knowledge. One prominent model of the mental lexicon of late bilinguals is the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart 1994), which postulates bidirectional but asymmetrical connections between separate stores for L1 (native language) and L2 (second/foreign language), and a shared conceptual store. Using German native speakers with advanced English proficiency, Experiment 1 largely confirmed model predictions regarding different preferred mental routes and processing times depending on translation direction. Moreover, the original design was extended by including abstract stimuli and picture naming in L2. A series of additional measures, such as proficiency and age of acquisition, served to specify the language experience of the participants and made it possible to compare the results with a group of non-native speakers of German (Experiment 2). Interestingly, the results suggest that the model also applies to two or more non-native languages, potentially influenced by the experimental and general language context.

Context Matters: How Experimental Language and Language Environment Affect Mental Representations in Multilingualism

“…These experiments were loosely based on Kroll and Stewart's (1994) theoretical framework. Specifically, Experiment 1 followed up on the unexpected findings of Sperl et al (2023), replicating and establishing the paradigm in an online format and focusing on individual differences between speakers' language biographies. Next, two further experiments manipulated and compared two distinct types of language context: Experiment 2 investigated the short-term role of the experimental language by varying the language of the instructions, while Experiment 3 targeted the wider longterm language environment by contrasting participants living in countries where different societal languages are spoken.…”

“…In addition to an online replication of Sperl et al (2023), Experiment 1 also looked at the role played by immersion experiences. We predicted that the language of immersion, in this case German, would be highlighted and therefore assume the role of a pseudo-native language.…”

“…Proficiency and age of acquisition are often reported in this context. However, a recent study by Sperl et al (2023) showed that a language learned later in life can still be superior in status compared to one learned earlier (in their case German, which was on average learned at an age of 16.5 years, compared to English, with 8.2 years). In addition, participants in this study exhibited a highly similar proficiency level regarding the two experimental languages (M = 4.5 on a scale from 1-A2 to 6-C2 level).…”

“…Importantly, bidirectional connections exist between the separate lexical stores of the native (L1) and subsequently acquired foreign language (L2) (Broersma and Bot 2006;Brown and Gullberg 2008;Degani et al 2011;Kroll and Stewart 1994;Lagrou et al 2011). However, the connections differ in strength and are therefore asymmetrical: translation from L2 to L1 tends to be faster and more accurate compared to that in the reverse direction (Kroll et al 2002;Kroll and Sholl 1992;Kroll and Stewart 1994;Palmer et al 2010;Potter et al 1984;Sperl et al 2023;Zheng et al 2020). The model explains this phenomenon by suggesting that the preferred pathway from the L1 word (e.g., apple) to the corresponding word in L2 (Apfel) is mediated via its equivalent representation in the conceptual store.…”

“…In the 30 years since its publication, the RHM has been intensively questioned and refined by numerous studies (Heredia 1997;Kroll and Tokowicz 2001;Kroll et al 2010;Palmer et al 2010). Recently, Sperl et al (2023) investigated the applicability of the RHM to non-native multilingual speakers. Their Experiment 2 resembled Kroll and Stewart's (1994) Experiment 3, but instead of comparing participants' native language to a second language, they compared asymmetry and category effects for two different foreign languages (e.g., L2 and L3).…”