Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-lvw85 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-13T21:28:40.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the Revised Hierarchical Model: Evidence from word associations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2014

JON CLENTON
JON CLENTON*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
*
Address for correspondence: Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, Whiteknights, PO Box 218, Reading RG6 6AA, UKj.clenton@reading.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main purpose of the work described in this paper is to examine the extent to which the L2 developmental changes predicted by Kroll and Stewart's (1994) Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) can be understood by word association response behaviour. The RHM attempts to account for the relative “strength of the links between words and concepts in each of the bilingual's languages” (Kroll, Van Hell, Tokowicz & Green, 2010, p. 373). It proposes that bilinguals with higher L2 proficiency tend to rely less on mediation, while less proficient L2 learners tend to rely on mediation and access L2 words by translating from L1 equivalents. In this paper, I present findings from a simple word association task. More proficient learners provided a greater proportion of collocational links, suggesting that they mediate less when compared to less proficient learners. The results provide tentative support for Kroll and Stewart's model.

Keywords

Revised Hierarchical Modelword associationsbilingualismmediation

Information

Type
Research Note
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 118 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am extremely grateful to Tess Fitzpatrick, Judith Kroll, Jeanine Treffers-Daller, and to the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank the staff and students of the Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University, for participating in the studies presented in this paper.

References

Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6, 253–279.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Brones, I. (1980). Semantic classification by bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 77–81.Google Scholar
Chee, M. W. L., Tan, E. W. L., & Thiel, T. (1999). Mandarin and English single word processing studied with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 3050–3056.Google Scholar
Chen, J. J. (1992). Lun xin jia po hua yu zhong yu ma jia za xian xiang [Code mixing in Singapore Mandarin]. BA Honors thesis, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Poot, R. (1997). Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language: The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Language Learning, 47, 215–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dulk, J. J. (1985). Productive vocabulary and the word association test. Master's thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition, 23, 166–180.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2007). Productive vocabulary tests and the search for concurrent validity. In Daller, H., Milton, J. & Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, pp. 116–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Clenton, J. (2010). The challenge of validation: Assessing the performance of a test of productive vocabulary. Language Testing, 27, 537–554.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Izura, C. (2011). Word association in L1 and L2: An exploratory study of response types, response times and interlingual mediation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 373–398.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Meara, P. (2004). Exploring the validity of a test of productive vocabulary. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 55–73.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Munby, I. (2013). Knowledge of word associations. In Milton & Fitzpatrick (eds.), pp. 92–105.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Wray, A. (2006). Breaking up is not so hard to do: Individual differences in L2 memorisation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabois, H. (1999). The convergence of sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics: Lexical semantics and the L2 acquisition of love, fear, and happiness. In Palmer, G. & Occhi, D. (eds.), Languages of sentiment: Cultural constructions of emotional substrates, pp. 201–233. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Py, B. (1991). La restructuration d’une première langue: L’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues. La Linguistique, 27, 35–60.Google Scholar
Guo, T., Misra, M., Tam, J. W., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). On the time course of accessing meaning in a second language: An electrophysiological investigation of translation recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1165–1186.Google Scholar
Harris, R. J. (ed.) (1992). Cognitive processing in bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 2–31.Google Scholar
Keatley, C. W. (1992). History of bilingualism research in cognitive psychology. In Harris (ed.), pp. 15–49.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 531–553. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373–381.Google Scholar
Kruse, H., Pankhurst, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1987). A multiple word association probe in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 141–154.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Jia, G., & Litvak, A. (2000). The time course of conceptual processing in three bilingual populations. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 229–254.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (1997). Models of vocabulary acquisition. In Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, pp. 109–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2006). Emergent properties of multilingual lexicons. Applied Linguistics, 27, 620–644.Google Scholar
Meara, P., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex30: An improved method of assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System, 28, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1990). Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test 10Ka. Zurich: Eurocentres Learning Service.Google Scholar
Meara, P., Lightbown, P. M., & Halter, R. H. (1994). The effect of cognates on the applicability of yes/no vocabulary tests. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 296–311.Google Scholar
Milton, J., & Alexiou, T. (2009). Vocabulary size and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. In Richards, B., Daller, H., Malvern, D., Meara, P., Milton, J. & Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition, pp. 194–21. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Milton, J., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2013a). Deconstructing vocabulary knowledge. In Milton & Fitzpatrick (eds.), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Milton, J., & Fitzpatrick, T. (eds.) (2013b). Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1984). Vocabulary lists: Words, affixes and stems (ELI occasional Publication Number 12). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2009) Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches, pp. 125–160. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Malt, B. (2011). Kitchen Russian: Cross-linguistic differences and first-language object naming by Russian–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 19–45.Google Scholar
Randall, M. (1980). Word association behaviour in learners of English as a foreign language. Polyglot, 2, B4–D1.Google Scholar
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355–371.Google Scholar
Riegel, K., & Zivian, I. (1972). A study of inter- and intralingual associations in English and German. Language Learning, 22, 51–63.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talamas, A., Kroll, J. F., & Dufour, R. (1999). From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 45–58.Google Scholar
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign language comprehension. Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences, 104, 12530–12535.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 193–211.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, A. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780–789.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H. (2008). What bilingual word associations can tell us. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, pp. 261–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.Google Scholar