...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >On the Locus of L2 Lexical Fuzziness: Insights From L1 Spoken Word Recognition and Novel Word Learning
【24h】

On the Locus of L2 Lexical Fuzziness: Insights From L1 Spoken Word Recognition and Novel Word Learning

机译:关于L2词汇模糊的轨迹:L1口语识别与新词学习见解

获取原文
           

摘要

The examination of how words are learned can offer valuable insights into the nature of lexical representations. For example, a common assessment of novel word learning is based on its ability to interfere with other words; given that words are known to compete with each other ( Luce and Pisoni, 1998 ; Dahan et al., 2001 ), we can use the capacity of a novel word to interfere with the activation of other lexical representations as a measure of the degree to which it is integrated into the mental lexicon ( Leach and Samuel, 2007 ). This measure allows us to assess novel word learning in L1 or L2, but also the degree to which representations from the two lexica interact with each other ( Marian and Spivey, 2003 ). Despite the somewhat independent lines of research on L1 and L2 word learning, common patterns emerge across the two literatures ( Lindsay and Gaskell, 2010 ; Palma and Titone, 2020 ). In both cases, lexicalization appears to follow a similar trajectory. In L1, newly encoded words often fail at first to engage in competition with known words, but they do so later, after they have been better integrated into the mental lexicon ( Gaskell and Dumay, 2003 ; Dumay and Gaskell, 2012 ; Bakker et al., 2014 ). Similarly, L2 words generally have a facilitatory effect, which can, however, become inhibitory in the case of more robust (high-frequency) lexical representations. Despite the similar pattern, L1 lexicalization is described in terms of inter-lexical connections ( Leach and Samuel, 2007 ), leading to more automatic processing ( McMurray et al., 2016 ); whereas in L2 word learning, lack of lexical inhibition is attributed to less robust (i.e., fuzzy) L2 lexical representations. Here, I point to these similarities and I use them to argue that a common mechanism may underlie similar patterns across the two literatures.
机译:审查如何学习单词可以为词汇表现的性质提供有价值的见解。例如,新颖的词学习的共同评估是基于其干扰其他单词的能力;鉴于众所周知,众所周知,彼此竞争(Luce and Pisoni,1998; Dahan等,2001),我们可以利用新的词来干扰其他词汇表现的激活,作为程度的衡量标准它被融入了莱克西森(Leach和Samuel,2007)。这项措施允许我们在L1或L2中评估新的词学习,也可以评估来自两个Lexica的表示的程度互相互动(Marian和Spivey,2003)。尽管对L1和L2 Word学习有点独立的研究,但常见的图案出现在两个文献中(Lindsay和Gaskell,2010; Palma和Tite,2020)。在这两种情况下,词汇化似乎遵循类似的轨迹。在L1中,新编码的单词往往失败,首先是用已知的话语参与竞争,但他们稍后会这样做,在他们更好地融入到精神莱克逊(Gaskell和Dumay,2003; Dumay和Gaskell,2012; Bakker等。,2014)。类似地,L2字通常具有促进效果,然而,在更稳健的(高频)词汇表示的情况下可以成为抑制作用。尽管存在类似的模式,但是在词汇间连接(LEACH和Samuel,2007)方面描述了L1词汇化(McMurray等,2016);虽然在L2字学习中,但缺乏词汇抑制归因于较稳健的(即,模糊)L2词汇表现。在这里,我指向这些相似之处,我用它们争辩说共同的机制可能跨越两个文献的类似模式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号