Why Investigate the Multilingual Lexicon?

Cenoz, Jasone; Hufeisen, Britta; Jessner, Ulrike

doi:10.1007/978-0-306-48367-7_1

Cited by 40 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The thorough study of these effects is contingent upon the availability of more detailed language profiles of authors in learner corpora. The manifestation of these interlanguage transfer effects (the influence of one L2 on another) is dependent on the status, recency and proficiency of the learner's acquired languages (Cenoz and Jessner 2001). Accordingly, these variables need to be accounted for by the corpus creation methodology.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilingual native language identification

Malmasi¹,

Dras²

2015

Nat. Lang. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the first comprehensive study of Native Language Identification (NLI) applied to text written in languages other than English, using data from six languages. NLI is the task of predicting an author's first language using only their writings in a second language, with applications in Second Language Acquisition and forensic linguistics. Most research to date has focused on English but there is a need to apply NLI to other languages, not only to gauge its applicability but also to aid in teaching research for other emerging languages. With this goal, we identify six typologically very different sources of non-English second language data and conduct six experiments using a set of commonly used features. Our first two experiments evaluate our features and corpora, showing that the features perform well and at similar rates across languages. The third experiment compares non-native and native control data, showing that they can be discerned with 95 per cent accuracy. Our fourth experiment provides a cross-linguistic assessment of how the degree of syntactic data encoded in partof-speech tags affects their efficiency as classification features, finding that most differences between first language groups lie in the ordering of the most basic word categories. We also tackle two questions that have not previously been addressed for NLI. Other work in NLI has shown that ensembles of classifiers over feature types work well and in our final experiment we use such an oracle classifier to derive an upper limit for classification accuracy with our feature set. We also present an analysis examining feature diversity, aiming to estimate the degree of overlap and complementarity between our chosen features employing an association measure for binary data. Finally, we conclude with a general discussion and outline directions for future work.

show abstract

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilingual native language identification

Malmasi¹,

Dras²

2015

Nat. Lang. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, it seems useful to take into account the notions put forward in theoretical and empirical studies of the bi-or multilingual lexicon (cf. Cenoz, Jessner & Hufeisen 2003;Pavlenko 2009): Following the majority view in the field, we can assume that the multilingual lexicon is "an integrated lexicon that consists of a mix of words" (Dijkstra 2003: 17), although some of the models differ with respect to the architectural details regarding how words or features are associated with languages or organized in language-specific ways, and the configuration of activation and inhibition across or within layers vary across the different models. Most of these models, however, distinguish among different structural layers (feature, letter, word, language in BIA (Bilingual Interactive Activation), feature, phoneme, word in BIMOLA (Bilingual Interactive…”

Section: 7 Discussion and Support From Qualitative Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

On abduction in receptive multilingualism. Evidence from cognate guessing tasks

Berthelé

2011

Applied Linguistics Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the question how multilinguals use their languages in order to guess the meaning of cognates in unlearnt but genealogically close languages. A series of studies is discussed whose aim is to tap into this process of interlingual inferencing. Different measures for phonological and graphematic distances across languages are established and correlated with the rates of successful cognate recognition in the search for a threshold of string similarity beyond which recognition becomes unlikely. The role of different types of the participants' multilingual repertoires is assessed, and other factors influencing good performance in cognate recognition are identified. The process of interlingual inferencing is discussed as a form of abductive reasoning, and quantitative and qualitative data are analyzed to support the idea that this type of abduction is an essential driving force in receptive multilingualism and language comprehension in general.

show abstract

“…Research studies have focused on various aspects of multilingual lexicon which deal with interconnections between the different lexicons in the multilingual's mind, such as Multilingual processing (Dijkstra, 2003;Schonpflug, 2003); Transfer in multilinguals (Cenoz, 2003;Jessner, 2003;Wei, 2003); Specific aspects of multilingual learning (Cenoz, 2003;Jessner, 2003;Wei, 2003) …”

Section: Key Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dijkstra's study was based on the monolingual Interactive Activation Model for visual word recognition (Cenoz, 2003;Jessner, 2003;Wei, 2003) and extended it to his view of bilingualism and multilingualism: (i) when extended to the bilingual domain, the Interactive Activation Model was linked with a mix of words from the two languages. In the view of language selective access, a selection mechanism, called 'input switch' shows to guide the visual words to the lexical L1 system.…”

Section: Multilingual Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the basis of this study, Wei concluded that there is a single mental lexicon for multilinguals with lemmas assigned to each language. Cenoz (2003) has drawn attention to the role of language typology in the organisation of multilingual lexicon and the selection of languages in cross-linguistic influence in third language production. Considering the different dimensions of cross-linguistic influence, Cenoz (2003, p. 107) suggested a continuum which presented two extreme positions: the interactional strategies and transfer lapses.…”

Section: Transfer In Multilingualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The architecture of the mental lexicon and the selection of lexical nodes

Halimi

2017

CERJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the architecture of the mental lexicon of third language learners by focusing on three representation levels: letter, word and language. In particular, this analysis attempts to examine the extent of the influence of the first and second languages known by bilingual learners of English. The study is guided by Dijkstra’s (2003) Multilingual Interactive Activation (MIA) model, and the hypothesis of the language selective or language nonselective access of third language learners is tested. The method involved in this analysis is the word translation task as a tool for investigating the organization of the mental lexicon. The results obtained as a result of the translation task claim that trilingual speakers can operate with three languages during the process of learning.Keywords: multilingual processing, mental lexicon, language typology.

show abstract

Why Investigate the Multilingual Lexicon?

Cited by 40 publications

References 0 publications

Multilingual native language identification

Multilingual native language identification

On abduction in receptive multilingualism. Evidence from cognate guessing tasks

The architecture of the mental lexicon and the selection of lexical nodes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About