2010
DOI: 10.1017/s136672891000009x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment

Abstract: Brysbaert and Duyck (2009) suggest that it is time to abandon the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll and Stewart, 1994) in favor of connectionist models such as BIA+ (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002) that more accurately account for the recent evidence on nonselective access in bilingual word recognition. In this brief response, we first review the history of the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM), consider the set of issues that it was proposed to address, and then evaluate the evidence that supports and fails to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

44
324
4
8

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 422 publications
(382 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
44
324
4
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover cross-linguistic priming showed that although morphological priming occurred for switching from L2 to L1, it caused the opposite effect for switching from L1 to L2. These results confirm predictions made by the Revised Hierarchical Model (KROLL et al, 2010), which explains this type of data in terms of the relative weakness of concept to word form mapping in L2 as compared to word form to concept mapping. Keywords: switching; bilingual word recognition; N400.…”
supporting
confidence: 88%
“…Moreover cross-linguistic priming showed that although morphological priming occurred for switching from L2 to L1, it caused the opposite effect for switching from L1 to L2. These results confirm predictions made by the Revised Hierarchical Model (KROLL et al, 2010), which explains this type of data in terms of the relative weakness of concept to word form mapping in L2 as compared to word form to concept mapping. Keywords: switching; bilingual word recognition; N400.…”
supporting
confidence: 88%
“…The model has been criticized since because converging empirical data have supported language nonselectivity contrary to the hypothesized existence of two distinct lexicons formulated by the model. This question is still open, and Kroll et al (2010) argue that bilinguals might have separate lexicons with paralell access to content. The model is developmental and suggests that growing proficiency changes the functioning of the two languages.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model is developmental and suggests that growing proficiency changes the functioning of the two languages. Proficient bilinguals do not use translation equivalents from the L1 to work with L2 words (Kroll et al 2010). Kroll and Sunderman (2003) believe that proficiency is the key factor, which can lead to concept mediation in the second language and that this factor also ensures that the L2 links to concepts become more similar as in L1 (Schwartz & Kroll 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationship between the pairs would also, of course, be represented at the semantic level, potentially allowing priming from either of two sources. More recently, the argument has been advanced that translation equivalents actually only share a relationship at the semantic level (e.g., Brysbaert & Duyck, 2010, although see Kroll, van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010). Even if that is true, however, the semantic relationship they have would be as strong a semantic relationship as it would be possible to create, especially when considering that the word pairs we used all represent simple familiar concepts (e.g., espejo-MIRROR) that share virtually all their senses.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%