S1366728921000894jxx 236..241

In our keynote article Ontogenesis Model of the L2 Lexical Representation (OM), we introduced a blueprint of a model that focuses on the multidimensionality of the L2 lexical representations (LRs), their properties, and development. Although its emphasis is on L2 LRs, it is also applicable to the development of L1 representations. We attempted to synthesise current research by drawing on a wide range of studies and bringing various research lines together. Such an approach makes it possible to outline a comprehensive model that connects seemingly disparate strands of research on L2 representations and their development (Escudero & Hayes-Harb, 2021) and to accommodate studies that are rarely considered together and have so far led a rather isolated life in the literature (Lemhöfer, 2021). At the same time, zooming out to gain a broader overview of the area necessarily entails a less detailed account of individual subareas, as noted in several commentaries, especially when operating under space limitations. These subareas are often addressed by less extensive models than the OM that handle particular aspects in more detail than is possible for a holistic model with comprehensive ambitions. We understand theory building and modelling as a continuum, with studies exploring individual phenomena and formulating narrow-scope, highresolution hypotheses about them at one end and comprehensive models and theories with complex architectures that try to cover larger areas and are of a more general character at the other. While the OM is closer to the latter, we acknowledge the usefulness and necessity of the existence of models with varying scope as they build upon and complement each other, and can serve various purposes to different degrees. For example, one ambition of the OM is to be accessible and useful for second language instruction. As pointed out by Baxter, Leoné and Dijkstra (2021a), the OM can serve as a “valuable theoretical underpinning for educational research”. For this particular purpose, it is less essential to present considerations of how different aspects of the OM can be computationally implemented; it is more important to synthesise current knowledge for further research that specifies which tasks and teaching methods contribute to the development of which components of lexical representations or to the reduction of fuzziness and moving towards the optimum in each specific dimension or domain. Baxter, Droop, van den Hurk, Bekkering, Dijkstra and Leoné (2021b) demonstrated such an approach that can induce more research-informed and effective language instruction and thus L2 learning. We were pleased that most commentators valued the approach that we decided to take when formulating the OM and agreed that it is a welcome, thought-provoking step, which can foster further productive research on L2 LRs. We identified three main topics in the commentaries, each addressed by several commentators. The first topic concerns the interaction of L2 representations with the L1 lexicon, the second topic – the concept of fuzziness and the optimum, and the third topic – OM’s potential for computational implementation. In the following, we address the three topics in separate sections and devote the concluding section to several other issues raised by individual commentators.