Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers

Abstract

We propose the fuzzy lexical representations (FLRs) hypothesis that regards fuzziness as a core property of nonnative (L2) lexical representations (LRs). Fuzziness refers to imprecise encoding at different levels of LRs and interacts with input frequency during lexical processing and learning in adult L2 speakers. The FLR hypothesis primarily focuses on the encoding of spoken L2 words. We discuss the causes of fuzzy encoding of phonological form and meaning as well as fuzzy form-meaning mappings and the consequences of fuzzy encoding for word storage and retrieval. A central factor contributing to the fuzziness of L2 LRs is the fact that the L2 lexicon is acquired when the L1 lexicon is already in place. There are two immediate consequences of such sequential learning. First, L2 phonological categorization difficulties lead to fuzzy phonological form encoding. Second, the acquisition of L2 word forms subsequently to their meanings, which had already been acquired together with the L1 word forms, leads to weak L2 form-meaning mappings. The FLR hypothesis accounts for a range of phenomena observed in L2 lexical processing, including lexical confusions, slow lexical access, retrieval of incorrect lexical entries, weak lexical competition, reliance on sublexical rather than lexical heuristics in word recognition, the precedence of word form over meaning, and the prominence of detailed, even if imprecisely encoded, information about LRs in episodic memory. The main claim of the FLR hypothesis – that the quality of lexical encoding is a product of a complex interplay between fuzziness and input frequency – can contribute to increasing the efficiency of the existing models of LRs and lexical access.

Fuzzy or Clear? A Computational Approach Towards Dynamic L2 Lexical-Semantic Representation

“…In their recent Ontogenesis Model (OM), Bordag et al (2021, p.2) argued that a crucial property of L2 lexical representation is fuzziness, which "refers to inexact or ambiguous encoding of different components or dimensions of the lexical representation that can be caused by several linguistic, cognitive, and learning-induced factors." (see also Gor et al, 2021 for the Fuzzy Lexical Representations account in this special research topic). Such a view is highly consistent with the concept of "parasitism" proposed by Hernandez et al (2005), according to which factors such age of acquisition (AoA), proficiency, and in particular competition/interaction between L1 and L2, are responsible for a L2 lexical-semantic representations that become parasitic (and usually fuzzy) to L1 representations (also see Hernandez and Li, 2007).…”

Employing General Linguistic Knowledge in Incidental Acquisition of Grammatical Properties of New L1 and L2 Lexical Representations: Toward Reducing Fuzziness in the Initial Ontogenetic Stage

“…Considering the whole grammatical domain of a single lexical entry, its optimum would be reached when all grammatical features of a given word class in the given language are acquired, including a stable representation of correctly set fixed values of the internal features. Missing, unstable or incorrectly set 7 Though the FLR hypothesis discusses representational fuzziness (which is also in the focus of our present study), it acknowledges the existence of fuzziness at the processing level, too (Gor et al, 2021). features would be factors that would determine the degree of fuzziness in this domain, analogically to how fuzziness is captured in the FLR hypothesis for the other domains.…”

“…In the present study, we addressed the question whether readers use previously acquired, generalized, grammatical knowledge to establish new lexical entries that would contain information not deducible from the immediate input and whether this ability depends on the properties of the word that appears in the input (i.e., verbal form vs. conversion noun form in our experiments). We further explored how these two aspects, i.e., (a) the engagement of previously acquired grammatical knowledge and (b) the specific properties of the newly encountered word interact with fuzziness as a characteristic property of not yet firmly acquired representations, typical especially for L2 learners (Bordag et al, 2021a,b;Gor et al, 2021). We took advantage of the existence of homonymous forms in the German language that can have various functions in the text and focused on the relationship between verbs and conversion nouns derived from them by a productive process.…”

“…Similarly, the first versions of the most recent frameworks and approaches, such as the Ontogenesis Model of the L2 Lexical Representation (OM; Bordag et al, 2021a) and the related Fuzzy Lexical Representation (FLR) Hypothesis (Cook and Gor, 2015;Gor and Cook, 2020;Gor et al, 2021) that address the development of individual lexical representations and their quality only marginally touch upon the grammatical aspects. The OM addresses the development of lexical representations along three dimensions: the dimension of linguistic domains, the dimension of mappings between domains, and the dimension of networks of lexical representations.…”

“…The concept of fuzziness plays an important role in the OM model and is further developed in the FLR hypothesis (in particular Gor et al, 2021) that shares its focus on the quality of lexical encoding with the lexical quality hypothesis developed for L1 reading (Perfetti and Hart, 2002;Perfetti, 2007). Lexical representations undergo a developmental change during which the degree of fuzziness decreases untill a target stage is reached.…”