Lexical and Conceptual Memory in Fluent and Nonfluent Bilinguals

Kroll, Judith F.; Sholl, Alexandra

doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61495-8

Cited by 93 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with predictions of RHM, translation asymmetry effect has been found in many earlier cross-language studies using different tasks and stimulus material (e.g., Kroll & Curley, 1988;Kroll & Stewart, 1994;Kroll & Sholl, 1992;Sholl, Sankaranarayanan, & Kroll, 1995).…”

Section: Introduction and Methodssupporting

confidence: 84%

Bilingual Memory: A Lifespan Approach

Moniri¹

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introduction and Methodssupporting

confidence: 84%

Bilingual Memory: A Lifespan Approach

Moniri¹

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As is illustrated at the semantic level in Figure 3, it is quite feasible that English translations were used to mediate the accessing of the meaning of these Chinese characters, as with other second languages (Kroll, Michael, & Sankaranarayanan, 1998;Kroll & Sholl, 1992). It also has been found that Chinese speakers who were learning English showed significant priming from an English prime to a homophone of a semantically related Chinese character, which showed that Chinese translation mediated the access of meaning in the reading of English for English learners (Guo & Peng, 2003).…”

Section: A Processing Framework For Chinese As Secondlanguage Learnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Threshold-style processing of Chinese characters for adult second-language learners

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Having acquired a first language during childhood, the second language learner comes to the task of learning the second language with a well-organized neurolinguistic system. Initially, the learning of the second language is highly parasitic on the structures of the first language in both lexicon (Kroll & Sholl, 1992) and phonology (Flege & Davidian, 1984;Hancin-Bhatt, 1994). When the learner first acquires a new L2 form, such as "silla" in Spanish, this form is treated as simply another way of saying "chair".…”

Section: Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain

MacWhinney¹

2001

Cognition and Second Language Instruction

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language learning is a three-way interaction between the input, the learner, and the interactional context (Bloom, 1974). This three-way interaction provides a general framework for understanding first and second language acquisition, in both naturalistic and formal contexts. In order to elaborate this general framework, we need to model its three components:1. The input. We need to know how the linguistic input can be structured to maximize effective learning. What aspects of the phonology, syntax, semantics, and morphology of the input does the learner use to "crack the code" of the new language? 2. The learner. We need to understand exactly how the cognitive abilities of the learner shape the process and outcome of second language instruction. 3. The context. Traditionally, the classroom environment maintains a rather uniform structure in which interaction is controlled by the instructor. How does this framework affect learning and how can it be varied to improve the learning process?This paper will examine these three components within the framework of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, 1987; MacWhinney & Bates, 1989). To quantify the role of the input in second language learning, the model relies on the concepts of cue reliability and availability. To characterize the cognitive abilities of the learner, the model relies on findings from cognitive neuroscience. To understand the role of the context, the model elaborates the concepts of environmental and social support. The Competition Model views both first and second language learning as constructive, data-driven processes that rely not on universals of linguistic structure, but on universals of cognitive structure. It attributes development to learning and transfer, rather than to the principles and parameters of Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1965). The InputThe Competition Model is designed to quantify the ways in which distributional properties of the input control language learning and language processing. The basic claim of the model in regard to input is that language comprehension is based on the detection of a series of cues and the reliability and availability of these determines the strength of cues in comprehension. The model contrasts sharply with generative grammar in this regard. Generative grammar views language through the lens of abstract trees in a universal deep structure. The Competition Model recognizes the importance of surface phrase structure, but relates all sentence processing to cue detection and interpretation. Those cues that are highest in reliability and availability are the ones that most strongly control comprehension and which are acquired first during language learning.In order to elaborate this simple relation between cues and comprehension, we need to specify how languages distribute cues across sentences. To do this, the Competition Model has turned to crosslinguistic studies of sentence processing. In particular, the forms or

show abstract

Lexical and Conceptual Memory in Fluent and Nonfluent Bilinguals

Cited by 93 publications

References 18 publications

Bilingual Memory: A Lifespan Approach

Bilingual Memory: A Lifespan Approach

Threshold-style processing of Chinese characters for adult second-language learners

The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About