Structure of the second language mental lexicon: how does it compare to native speakers' lexical organization?

Abstract

One of the questions frequently asked in second language (L2) lexical research is how L2 learners' patterns of lexical organization compare to those of native speakers (NSs). A growing body of research addresses this question by using word association (WA) tests. However, little research has been done on the role of language proficiency in the associative patterning of L2 learners' lexical knowledge, especially the way it affects the quantitative and the qualitative patterns of meaning connections. Similarly, no research attention has been devoted to the strength of the relationship between these patterns, although the general assumption seems to be that they are interrelated. To address these issues, first some traditional distinctions that first language (L1) WA researchers make between the qualitative and quantitative features of WA domains are discussed. Next, the application of WA tests in L2 studies and some of the most significant findings concerning L2 learners' vocabulary structure are briefly reviewed. Finally, a study involving native speakers ( n = 29), L2 advanced ( n = 29) and L2 intermediate learners of English ( n = 29) is presented. Results suggest that differences in the organization of lexical knowledge between L2 speakers and NSs are quantitative rather than qualitative.

Investigating the Role of L2 Language Proficiency in Word Association Behavior of L2 Learners: A Case of Iranian EFL Learners

“…In addition, the use of lesser-known prompt words revealed that NS and NNS associations were similar in the proportions of paradigmatic, syntagmatic, and clang responses produced (Wolter, 2001;Fitzpatrick, 2006;Zareva, 2007). It appears that various factors, like the "depth of word knowledge" (Wolter, 2001) and "word familiarity" (Zareva, 2007) greatly influence both NS and NNS associations (Wharton, 2010). Wolter (2006) contends that the most important difference between NSs and NNSs lies in the syntagmatic connections (e.g.…”

“…Recent studies have also questioned whether a division between L1 and L2 lexicons is actually so prominent, based on the discovery that NSs are not so homogeneous after all (Nilson & Henriksen, 2006;Fitzpatrick, 2007). In addition, the use of lesser-known prompt words revealed that NS and NNS associations were similar in the proportions of paradigmatic, syntagmatic, and clang responses produced (Wolter, 2001;Fitzpatrick, 2006;Zareva, 2007). It appears that various factors, like the "depth of word knowledge" (Wolter, 2001) and "word familiarity" (Zareva, 2007) greatly influence both NS and NNS associations (Wharton, 2010).…”

Assessing L2 vocabulary depth with word associates format tests: issues, findings, and suggestions

“…The free association paradigm has also been commonly used in the L2 literature to probe into the mental organization of words and the development of that organization in L2 learners (e.g., Fitzpatrick 2013; *Henriksen 2008;Jiang 2002;Nissen and Henriksen 2006;Wolter 2001;Zareva 2007). From the perspective of assessing vocabulary depth, however, the free association paradigm has some notable limitations.…”

The Organization of the Senses of Polysemy in Japanese EFL Learners’ Mental Lexicon

“…Compared to an L1 user's mental lexicon, that of an L2 is affected by a number of other factors. For example, the structure of the mental lexicon itself is known to differentiate by the participants' L2 proficiency (e.g., Zareva, 2007 Orden (1997) found that the number of senses described in dictionaries did not influence the participants' lexical access. That is, even if a polysemous word has more multiple senses than another polysemous word, the times required for lexical access between them were not different.…”