Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-dwt4q Total loading time: 0.776 Render date: 2021-06-18T03:57:24.936Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

USING LEXICAL FEATURES TO INVESTIGATE SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL DECISION PERFORMANCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

Cynthia Berger
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Scott Crossley
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Stephen Skalicky
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

A large dataset of word recognition behavior from nonnative speakers (NNS) of English was collected using an online crowdsourced lexical decision task. Lexical features were used to predict NNS lexical decision latencies and accuracies. Predictors of NNS latencies and accuracy included contextual diversity, age of acquisition, and contextual distinctiveness, while length moderated the impact of contextual diversity and neighborhood size on accuracy. Results have implications for second language word recognition and demonstrate that NNS behavioral data collected through large crowdsourcing projects can afford a rich source for SLA research.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determined word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814823. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x 16984300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 234254.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 41, 439461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1990). What are the effects of frequency in visual word recognition tasks? Right where we said they were! Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 231237. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283316. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In Schwanenflugel, P. (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445459. doi: 10.3758/bf03193014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnhoorn, J. S., Haasnoot, E., Bocanegra, B. R., & van Steenbergen, H. (2015). QRTEngine: An easy solution for running online reaction time experiments using Qualtrics. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 918929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, C. M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2017). Using novel word context measures to predict human ratings of lexical proficiency. Educational Technology and Society, 20, 201212.Google Scholar
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A., & Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25, 447457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British National Corpus. (2007). Version 3 (BNC XML Edition). Retrieved from http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., & Watson, F. L. (1987). First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word-frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency. Memory and Cognition, 15, 208216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., Lange, M., & Wijnendaele, I. V. (2000). The effects of age-of-acquisition and frequency-of-occurrence in visual word recognition: Further evidence from the Dutch language. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 6585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009a). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977990. doi: 10.3758/brm.41.4.977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009b). Subtlexus: American word frequencies. Retrieved from http:/subtlexus.lexique.org.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bultena, S., & Dijkstra, T. (2013). Lexical access in bilingual visual word recognition. In Chappele, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 17). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Cann, R. (2000). Functional versus lexical: A cognitive dichotomy. In Borsely, R. D. (Ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories (Vol. 32). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carlton, J. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 130136.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In Dornic, S. (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. VI). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, S. V., & Gor, K. (2015). Lexical access in NNS: Representational deficit or processing constraint? Mental Lexicon, 10, 247270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. V., Pandža, N. B., Lancaster, A. K., & Gor, K. (2016). Fuzzy nonnative phonolexical representations lead to fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortese, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Visual word recognition in skilled adult readers. In Spivey, M. J., McRae, K., & Joanisse, M. F. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 159185). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A. (2013). Assessing automatic processing of hypernymic relations in first language speakers and advanced second language learners: A semantic priming approach. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 96116. doi: 10.1075/ml.8.1.05cro.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Subtirelu, N., & Salsbury, T. (2013). Frequency effects or context effects in second language word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 727755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 159190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 91124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A., Dannenburg, L., & Van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63, 5267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first-and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groots, A. M. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179201). London UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 284301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Vanderelst, D., Desmet, T., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). The frequency effect in second-language visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 850855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, A. W., & Morrison, C. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 515.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning. In Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 122139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143188. doi: 10.1017/s0272263102002024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297339. doi:10.1017/s0272263102002140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Paulmann, S., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Who’s in control? Proficiency and L1 influence on NNS processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 15931610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enochson, K., & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS ONE, 10(3).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic- and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 289315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, P., Ralph, M. A. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 718730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 6099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, N. F., & Pugh, K. R. (1994). A cohort model of visual word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 240346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono-and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 287304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In Aitken, A. J., Bailey, R. W., & Hamilton-Smith, N. (Eds.), The computer and literary studies (pp. 153165). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, H., & Francis, N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 757786. doi: 10.1002/tesq.194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. M. (2017). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods . Advance Online Publication.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H., Baayen, R. H., Grainger, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 12.Google Scholar
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, V., & Blumenfeld, H. K. (2006). Phonological neighborhood density guides: Lexical access in native and non-native language production. Journal of Social and Ecological Boundaries, 2, 335.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001). Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44, 295323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1995). Roles of word frequency and age of acquisition in word naming and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 116153.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C., & Schreiber, T. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://www.usf.edu.Google Scholar
New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 4552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, L. (2016). Multicompetence in second language acquisition: Inroads into the mainstream? In Cook, V. & Wei, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multicompetence (pp. 5076). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1991). Images in mind: The evolution of a theory. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 542549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Portin, M., Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2007). Processing of inflected nouns in late bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 135156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K. (2009). Visual word recognition. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 7187). Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). The role of age of acquisition in late second language oral proficiency attainment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 713743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27(3), 343360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Hemchua, S. (2006). An analysis of lexical errors in the English composition of Thai learners. Prospect, 21(3), 325.Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P., & Stowe, R. W. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In Schwanenflugel, P. (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82102. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., Poulsen, C., & Komoda, M. (1991). Lower level components of reading skill in higher level bilinguals: Implications for reading instruction. AILA review, 8, 1530.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369385. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400010845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, S. J., Segalowitz, N. S., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 5367. doi: 10.1017/s0142716400010572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spieler, D. H., & Balota, D. A. (1997). Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level. Psychological Science, 8, 411416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr, R., Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418452). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structures of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 4178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, G., & Campbell, A. (2013). Psycholinguistic approaches to vocabulary. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55, 7198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 439456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whaley, C. (1978). Word—nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 143154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 502529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 971979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, M., Locker, L., & Simpson, G. B. (2004). The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 452457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Berger et al. supplementary material

Berger et al. supplementary material 1
Download Berger et al. supplementary material(File)
File 28 KB
Supplementary material: File

Berger et al. supplementary material

Berger et al. supplementary material 2

Download Berger et al. supplementary material(File)
File 516 KB
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

USING LEXICAL FEATURES TO INVESTIGATE SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL DECISION PERFORMANCE
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

USING LEXICAL FEATURES TO INVESTIGATE SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL DECISION PERFORMANCE
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

USING LEXICAL FEATURES TO INVESTIGATE SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL DECISION PERFORMANCE
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *