Memory
SLA IIIa Week 10-11

 The word memory has a number of different meanings.
 It is the place where memory information is stored.

Bilingual Memory

 It is the process of storing and retrieving information.
 Words are stored in memory.
 An analogy often used in psycholinguistics is that words

Koji Miwa

are stored in the mental dictionary (the mental lexicon).

Nagoya University

 The mental lexicon is a major component of semantic

memory, which is in long-term declarative memory.
12MemoryMemory

 How are words stored in bilingual memory?

Memory How are L1 words stored in bilingual memory?

Long-term memory

Short-term memory

Sensory memory

 How are L2 words stored in bilingual memory?

(working memory) How are concepts stored in bilingual memory?

Declarative memory

Non-declarative memory(explicit, facts)(implicit, procedural, skills & habits) Two levels of representatations: Conceptual representations

Meaning representations of words
Semantic memory
3

Episodic (autobiographical) memory

 Lexical representations
4

Word-form representations of words

1

The bilingual mental lexiconThe bilingual mental lexicon

 Weinreich (1953) proposed 3 patterns of bilingual Word association model introduced by Potter, So, Von

Eckardt, and Feldman (1984)

language representations.
 Coordinate: 2 different concepts for translation

Conceptual
Representationequivalents in 2 languages
 Compound: 1 concept for translation equivalents in2 languages
 Subordinate: 1 concept is linked to a L1 word
Orthographic
Representation

which is linked to a L2 word.
5

The bilingual mental lexicon

coffeekoffie

L2L1The bilingual mental lexicon

 Concept mediation model introduced by Potter, So, Weinreich’s (1953) compound bilingual corresponds

Von Eckardt, and Feldman (1984)

to the concept mediation model of Potter et al. (1984)
 Weinreich’s (1953) subordinate bilingual corresponds

Conceptual
Representation

to the word association model of Potter et al. (1984)

 I should be noted that different types of structures
Orthographic
Representation

may coexist within a bilingual memory.
coffeekoffie

L2

L1

82

The bilingual mental lexicon

The bilingual mental lexicon

 The two studies hypothesized different end results.

 Potter et al. (1984) compared ① L1-to-L2 translation (forward translation)

 Weinreich’s (1953)

subordinate (word association) à ② Picture naming in L2compound Potter et al. (1984)

Word association à

concept mediation

910

The bilingual mental lexicon

The bilingual mental lexicon Potter et al.’s (1984) hypothesized Later studies with less proficient bilinguals (lessproficient than Potter et al’s) did not replicate the If the Concept Mediation Model is correct, RTs

result supporting the Concept Mediation Model. (Krollshould be equally long in both tasks ① and ②.

& Curley, 1988).

 If the Word Association Model is correct, RTs should Within a bilingual’s memory, different types ofbe shorter for ① than that for ②.

structures may coexist.

 Results were in line with the Concept Mediation

Model (the model even holds for less proficientbilinguals).
11

 Koji’s note: Recall Toulmin’s Schema

123

The Revised Hierarchical Model

The Revised Hierarchical Model Kroll and Stewart (1994) integrated the two models.

 The L2 → L1 link is strong
 The L1 → L2 link is weak
 This asymmetrical links between the lexical

Conceptual
Representation

representations are based on the authors’ observationthat L1-to-L2 translation takes longer than L2-to-L1

Judith Krolltranslation.
Orthographic
Representation

coffeekoffie

L2

L1

14

The Revised Hierarchical Model

Brysbaert & Duyck (2010)

 Kroll and Stewart also found semantic clustering,

which supports the Revised Hierarchical Model.
 Presenting words in semantically related clusters slow

down L1-to-L2 translation, but not L2-to-L1 translation

Marc Brysbaert(less concept involvement for the latter).
 Koji’s note: Finkbeiner and Nicol (2003) reported

inhibitory semantic category effects in second
language learning. Are words organized efficiently in a15

typical vocabulary book?

Wouter Duyck
164

Contributions of the RHM

Evidence against the RHM

 Separate L1 and L2 lexicons (which imply selective Evidence against separate lexicons and selective

access to one of the lexicons)

access.
 The majority of studies have suggested non- Impact on neurocognitive research (althoughselective access.

apparently no clear separation exists between L1 andL2)

 Evidence against strong L2 → L1 lexicon connection

 L1 and L2 processing asymmetries (backward Priming studies suggest otherwisetranslation L2 → L1 is faster than forward translation)

 Evidence against the lack of concept mediation in L2

 Developmental change in bilinguals
17processing.
18

Evidence against the RHM

Evidence against the RHM

 Evidence against language-independent conceptual Word association tasks were used to study

information.

conceptual representations.

 The Distributed Feature Model of de Groot and Van

 Bilingual participants’ responses were more

Hell assumes language-specific conceptual

equivalent for concrete words than abstract words.

representations.

 The full meaning equivalence does not hold for alltranslation pairs.
 Koji’s note: Recall Grosjean’s Complementarity

Principles.
19205

Evidence against the RHM

Reply to Brysbaert & Duyck (2010)

 Brysbaert and Duyck (2010) proposed that we should

leave the RHM behind.
 They also proposed that we should start from acomputational model for bilingual word recognition

Judith Kroll

Janet van HellNatasha Tokowicz

David Green(e.g., BIA, BIA+).

2122

Reply to Brysbaert & Duyck (2010)

Reply to Kroll et al. (2010)

 The RHM is a model of word production, not a modelof word recognition.
 Non-selectivity is not clearly specified in the RHM, but

it is not an important feature of the model.

Marc Brysbaert

 Separate lexicons do not necessarily lead to non-selective processing.
 No model should be left behind.
Wouter Duyck
23246

Reply to Kroll et al. (2010)

Bilingual concepts

 The RHM generated hypotheses that had to be Concepts associate with pairs of words might berejected.

different between two languages.

 Can students still receive benefit in studying this This is, to a certain extent, obvious.

model?

 For example, schadenfreude (German) is, in English,“a feeling of pleasure or satisfaction when something It is not widely recognized that the RHM is a model ofword production.

bad happens to someone else.” Out of 166 papers citing the RHM, 83 was on Various types of concepts have been studied:

perception and 82 were on production.
25concepts for objects, colors, time, space, and motion.
26

Object concepts

Object concepts

 Do we have universal linguistic categories?
 Or are there language-specific categories?
 Between translation equivalents in two languages,

do we find pairwise relationships for their concepts?
 Are multiple concepts in one language subordinate

to one large concept in another language?
 Malt, Sloman, and Gennari (2003) studied how 60

container pictures are named by speakers of English,
27

Spanish, and Chinese

28

7

Object concepts

29

Object concepts

30

Object concepts

Grammatical gender Malt and Sloman (2003) tested

 Grammatical genders in some languages (e.g.,L2 English speakers in an

German, Spanish, French, Arabic) are labeled

object naming task.

masculine, feminine, and neuter.

 Non-native speakers’ naming However, they are not in line with the biological gender

pattern differed from nativeand different across languages.

speakers’.

 e.g., Schlüssel ‘key’ (German) -> masculine The more L2 experience the e.g., Llave ‘key’ (Spanish)-> feminine

raters had, the more native-like31

their responses were.

328

Grammatical gender

Grammatical gender Boroditsky et al.’s (2003) asked German-English

bilinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals to provide
three adjectives to describe items.
 German speakers tended to describe keys as hard,

heavy, jagged, metal, and useful.
 Spanish speakers used words like golden, intricate,little, lovely, and tiny.
 Conceptual transfer occurs from L1 to L2.
33

34

Grammatical # and object concepts

Grammatical; # and object concepts

 Athanasopoulos and Kasai (2008) tested Japanese- In Athanasopoulos and Kasai (2008) study,

English bilinguals to study two languages with different

participants were asked to select, given 2 alternate

number systems.

pictures, which alternate is the same as the target.

 Shape information is expected to be important in English.

 One of the alternate was identical to the target interms of shape (the other was color-matched).

 If learners of English indeed rely strongly on the Advanced Japanese learners behaved like nativereferent’s shape, with a growth in L2 English, shape35

should become a more prominent feature in the object

English speakers, selecting shape-matched

concepts of Japanese learners of English.

alternates.
369That is all for today

3710