1English Word Recognition Strategies by Native Speakers ofRussian (Evidence from Russian-English bilinguals).Abstract

The present paper focuses on studying visual word recognition strategies in bilinguals. Althoughbilingualism has been a thoroughly discussed issue in psycholinguistic literature little emphasis wasgiven to the domain of word recognition strategies. Since word recognition is an essential reading skilland the cornerstone of language comprehension and language acquisition, it occupies a prominentplace in psycholinguistic research.

Word recognition strategies have been the topic of investigation in cognitive psychology,neurolinguistics, SLA theory. The bulk of research in this domain was centered round cognitive andmetacognitive communicative strategies for word recognition and their pedagogical implications,namely the problem of building communicative strategic competence in L2 learners.

In our study we attempt at approaching word recognition strategies from psycholinguisticperspective and try to elaborate a comprehensive set of semantic strategies used by bilinguals in theclassroom setting for L2 word recognition. So far in psycholinguistic research on word recognitionstrategies the role of semantics has been unduly overlooked.

We hypothesized that proficient L2 learners (Russian-English bilinguals) explicitly and/orimplicitly make use of a set of semantic and cognitive strategies for visual word recognition. Wehypothesized further that L1 must both facilitate and interfere with the process of recognition onformal and semantic (conceptual) level. To test our hypothesis and gain clear evidence for theproposed assumption we carried out a word association experiment.

Key words: visual word recognition, Russian-English bilingualism, mental lexicon, lexical access,L2 Acquisition, cross-cultural interactions

IntroductionWord recognition processes are implicit in natural speech processing. For a skilled and highly

proficient language user with extensive vocabulary word identification is an unconscious, automaticand instantaneous process that occurs in a fraction of a second (Muller, 2008). However wordrecognition is a complex multidimensional strategic process that is accomplished on different levels ofinformation processing (perceptual, cognitive, and affective: emotional and evaluative). Investigatingword recognition presupposes studying underlying cognitive components and mechanisms.

The beginning of our study presents an overview of the existing theoretical principles andconcepts and empirical evidence with regard to lexical access, perceptual and cognitive components ofrecognition, bilingual and multilingual mental lexicon. We proceed further to analyzing semanticstrategies of visual single word recognition in bilingual context. We address the following questions:- Does recognition of a word form automatically activate conceptual information in bilinguals?- How does the representation of a new language develop and then co-exist with the representations ofother languages in the bilingual mental lexicon? How do co-existing language systems influence eachother?

The second part is devoted to investigating bilingual language processing in terms of cross-language and cross-cultural interactions between languages. We discuss the phenomenon ofinterlanguage, language consciousness and its ethno-cultural specificity.

In the final part we describe the experiment that we conducted in order to detect wordidentification strategies and interactions within and between L1 and L2+. We review methods used fordata collection and analysis.

2Pedagogical and theoretical implications of the present study, further research possibilities andlimitations are discussed in the conclusion.

The main objectives of the present study include:- Investigating bilingual language processing: lexical access, mental representations of words, depth ofword knowledge, underlying perceptive and cognitive components of recognition.- Present a comprehensive study of L2 word recognition in bilingual learners and elaborate acomprehensive classification of universal semantic strategies and cues.- Review the existing theoretical and empirical research findings.- Investigate cross-language and cross-cultural interactions and their impact on word recognitionprocess.

The working hypothesis of our research consists in a prediction that English word recognition bynative speakers of Russian is achieved through a set of semantic strategies and cues. The process ofidentification is mediated by cross-linguistic facilitation and interference and cross-culturalinterference.

Word recognition research has been central on the development of theories of automatic andattentional processes (e.g., Healy & Drewnowski, 1983; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Neely, 1977;Posner & Snyder, 1975).

Theoretical Framework. Recognition of a word as a unit of mental lexicon.To begin with, it is essential to establish the basic terminology of our study: to define the concept

of word recognition, word identification, decoding, comprehension and lexical inferencing. Figure 1demonstrates the process of word recognition as a continuum which starts with decoding and ends incomprehension. Word recognition is the bridge between decoding and comprehension. Decoding isconcerned with formal aspect of recognition, i.e. processing of a letter string in visual recognition or asound sequence in auditory recognition. Recognition implies retrieving appropriate formal andsemantic/conceptual information from the mental lexicon. The ability to simply decode words (retrievephonological, orthographic, even morphological information) is not sufficient for comprehension (as itis possible to read foreign words without knowing their meaning). Thus, the word may be recognizedbut comprehended incorrectly or not understood altogether. To retrieve the meaning information aboutword form has to be integrated and processed on a semantic level using semantic strategies and tappinginto background world knowledge and knowledge of culture.

Decoding Comprehension

Orth

ogra

phic

Dec

odin

g

Phon

olog

ical

Dec

odin

g

Mor

phol

ogic

alD

ecod

ing

Wor

dR

ecog

nitio

n

Sem

antic

Stra

tegi

esan

dcu

es

Bac

kgro

und

Kno

wle

dge

Soci

o-cu

ltura

lCom

pete

nce

(Acc

ultu

ratio

n)

Flue

ncy

Figure 1One of the main characteristics of language fluency is automaticity (rapid and automatic word

recognition). Fluency is one of the key components of comprehension. When a readers decoding skillsare automatic, all cognitive energy can be focused on inferring the meaning. Repeated exposure andopportunities to use the new words in appropriate contexts (not in isolation) leads to automaticrecognition and the beginnings of comprehension. According to specialists in vocabulary acquisitionand teaching, words should be used in meaningful contexts between ten and fifteen times to becomeintegrated into the lexicon and therefore automatically processed. Words that beginning readersinitially sound out through word analysis or phonics come to be recognized as whole units.

3Learners who have difficulty with word recognition often misread words by substituting asimilar-looking known word for the target word (e.g.: carrying for carriage or immorality forimmortality; week instead of weak or see instead of sea). To what such recognition errors and manyother can be attributed? Linguistic knowledge alone is insufficient for accounting for such phenomena.We must consider the properties of the human mind from psycholinguistic perspective as well as thestructure of the language.

For many years, the prevailing assumption within the word recognition literature was that wordrecognition was automatic and did not demand any attentional resources for successful completion(Stroop, 1935; Besner & Stolz, 1999). More recent studies have indicated that although wordrecognition is an effortless and accurate process for many people, it still demands cognitive energy(e.g., Herdman, 1992; Kellas, Ferraro, & Simpson, 1988; Simpson, Kellas, & Ferraro, 1999). Strategicprocessing has been shown to involve attentional resources and affect word recognition performance(Carr, Davidson, & Hawkins, 1978; Henderson, 1982; Manelis, 1974; Neely, Keefe, & Ross, 1989). Inother words, skilled readers exert strategic control over various coding and decoding mechanismsthought to impact visual word recognition (Milota, Widau, McMickell, Juola, and Simpson, 1997).

The process of word recognition and word comprehension is complex and multi-dimensional.And as any complex subject it can be tackled in multiple ways and from several perspectives:psycholinguistic, cognitive and sociolinguistic and within the framework of SLA theory. A thoroughinvestigation of this phenomenon requires taking into account all variables: bilingual lexical accessand language processing, mental representations of words and concepts in bilingual mind, cross-language and cross-cultural interactions, strategic nature of word recognition, variability of semanticand cognitive strategies, individual learner's variables.

From psycholinguistic perspective word recognition (identification) represents the entire set ofpsychological, cognitive and linguistic processing faculties necessary for comprehension of a word inisolation or in context. These processes operate consciously and unconsciously, explicitly andimplicitly and imply subjective readiness to recruit a larger scope of background content knowledgeand products of previous experience.

Word recognition is the most basic and the most critical process in reading representing theability of a reader to identify words (a string of printed letters) rapidly, accurately and virtuallyeffortlessly in isolation and within the context. In this respect by word identification we mean access toits contextually relevant meaning or any meaning (if a word is given in isolation). In our research wefocus primarily on isolated word recognition without the benefit of surrounding words for contextualhelp.

Although L2 vocabulary acquisition is a widely researched area in psycholinguistics, relativelylittle is known about the actual processes that take place during the course of lexical activation,recognition and comprehension. Furthermore, the notion of word knowledge is also problematic. Whatdoes knowing a word encompass? What are the criteria of knowing a word? It is essential to examinewhat it means to know a word as a prerequisite to investigating word recognition strategies.

Words are learnt incrementally, not "in a not acquired/acquired manner" (Schmitt, 1998), thusthere are different levels of knowing a word, and different strategies can be applied to its recognition atany given time. The most well-defined and comprehensive description of word knowledge is given byNation (1990), consisting of eight word categories: spoken form, written form, grammatical behaviour,collocational behaviour, frequency, stylistic register constraints, meaning, and associations. Thesecategories include both receptive and productive skills.

Anderson and Freebody (1981, as cited in Read, 2004) defined depth of word knowledge as "thequality of understanding a word", which means that a word can be considered known by a learner if allthe distinctions that would be understood by an adult native speaker in normal conditions are clear tothem. This definition refers only to precision of meaning and disregards the fact that most high-frequency words in the English language might have numerous meanings, senses and connotations orare vague (especially when seen out of context, as it happens in many test situations).

The third way of describing depth of word knowledge was suggested by Henriksen (1999) asnetwork knowledge. In his view, the greater a learners vocabulary size, the more there is a need for

4new words to be incorporated into an already existing network of words, which therefore needs to berestructured. Thus, depth of word knowledge is the ability to relate to semantically linked words.

The problem is all the more complex since it can be assumed that individuals differ in the waythey acquire new words and retain them in the memory and subsequent semantic strategies that theyapply to recognize them.

The essentials of word recognition can be considered by addressing three main questions:1. What is being recognized (i.e. what does a learner know when he/she knows / understands the

word)?2. How is recognition achieved (i.e. what are perceptual and cognitive mechanisms underlying

word recognition)?3. Based on what cognitive and semantic strategies?

Figure 2Word recognition is not equivalent to the identification of a lexical meaning of the word in its

traditional interpretation (i.e. the way it is presented in Thesauri; dictionary meaning); nor does itcoincide with semantic representations. What is being recognized is defined as psychological structureof meaning (Zalevskaya) which encompasses invariant conventional linguistic meaning shared by alllanguage speakers in a particular ethno-social group and a certain unique personal sense of the word.The latter gravitates to "concept" which expresses genuine non-verbal meaning.

Word recognition operates on two levels of processing: 1) perceptual (orthographic processing -decoding of written / printed word form; phonological processing - decoding of sound form); 2)cognitive (lexical access, semantic and conceptual processing, cognitive control).

The link between perception and cognition is maintained through top-down and / or bottom-upprocessing. Bottom level is represented by perceptual input (letter string or for visual perception or asequence of sounds for auditory perception). Integration of all information about the stimulus(phonological, orthographic, syntactic representations) and access to the meaning occurs at the toplevel of cognitive processing. In top-down processing semantic context directly impacts word

WHAT?

HOW?

BASED ONWHAT?

Inner perceptual-cognitive-affective context of previous experience(verbal and non-verbal). Background knowledge

Information Thesaurus / Individual Knowledge (language andencyclopedic knowledge)

Individual World View Mental Lexicon

Psychological Structure of Word Meaning (conventionalsystematic language meaning + subjective "sense")

Concept

Cognitive Strategies and structure-semantics clues Strategic Models of Identification

Lexical Accessand Word

Recognition

5recognition in lexical inferencing, anticipation, restoration of a deficient input signal, makinghypotheses about word meaning, correcting errors that might occur on the perceptual level etc.

Recognition passes several stages of processing:1) Pre-lexical processing: perceptual analysis of whole-word shape, orthographic and phonological

decoding;2) Lexical decision: whether a particular letter string is a word in the target language or a non-word;3) Lexical access: matching of the word form to an entry in the mental lexicon and retrieving

semantic information;4) Post-lexical processing: lexical selection, verification of the semantic hypotheses;5) Word Recognition.

Word can be recognized on two levels that correspond to the depth of semantic access: surfacelevel and deep level. The evidence for this hypothesis is derived from analyzing errors: e.g.,substituting the target word with a phonologically or orthographically similar word form and noconnection in meaning (week weak; sea see; ship sheep; sun son). Theoretical support for thisconjecture is provided by Chomsky's level theory and motivational and semantic levels of Osgood.

Surface-structure level is a superficial level of word forms with no access to semantics. Deep-structure level implies access to meaning through retrieving lexical and conceptual representations.The two-level recognition process is traceable to the basic 'form-and-content' dychotomic relationship.Levels of word identification correspond with Smirnov's theory of levels of intellectual activity (1996)and Woodworth and Schlosberg's experimental hypothesis of reactions (1954). Surface-levelidentification requires minimal cognitive energy and intellectual effort.

Levels of recognition reflect structural organization of mental lexicon (Zalevskaya, Zolotova).Surface-structure tier accounts for the formal aspect of lexical units and contains phonological andorthographic information. Surface tier has to sub-tiers: a sub-tier of sound (auditory) forms and a sub-tier of orthographic (visual) forms. Deep-structure tier stores all semantic information about words.

The following cognitive components are recruited in accessing the meaning of a lexical unit:a. Inner perceptual-cognitive-affective context of previous experience (verbal and non-verbal).

Word meaning represents a certain fragment of previous experience (situational, emotional etc.).b. Information Thesaurus / Individual Knowledge (linguistic and encyclopaedic knowledge). Word

is not a carrier of the meaning per se but a medium of accessing the information database(thesaurus / long-term memory) of a learner. According to the "Hologram hypothesis"(Zalevskaya) of storage and retrieval of information the word highlights a certain discretefragment of relevant information like a laser beam.

c. Individual worldview. According to a psycholinguistic theory of word (Zalevskaya), wordtranscends the world of language and taps into individual worldview with all its manifold ofbeliefs, notions, conceptual relationships, emotive and evaluative nuances.

d. Mental Lexicon. Word recognition operates on the basis of mental lexicon and is mediated bymental representations of words (phonetic, orthographic, morphological, semantic). As a unit ofmental lexicon a word is identified through a diverse interactive system of verbal associativeconnections with other lexical units. Words are acquired and stored together with a flexible set ofsemantic strategies for recognition. Levels of recognition correspond to levels of semanticprocessing which in their turn correspond to levels of mental lexicon: surface- and deep-structuretiers (Chomsky, Osgood, Zalevskaya)

e. Word recognition has a strategic nature and interactive character and is achieved through adiverse set of semantic strategies and structure-dependent semantic cues that operate on differentlevels of awareness.Cognitive components together with levels and stages of recognition constitute word

identification system (as shown in Figure 2).

Lexical AccessLexical access is an indispensable stage of word recognition entering the mental lexicon to

retrieve relevant information about the stimulus. This information is stored in the form of mental

6representations (Aitchison 2003). For each lexical entry there exist phonological (sound), orthographic(spelling), morphological (affixes that constitute the word), syntactical (lexical valency andcombinability), semantic (meaning) and conceptual (notion) representations.

Word recognition, thus, can be defined as the process of retrieving mental representations based onthe form of the input. The process of accessing this information is interactive (Massaro, Coltheart,Zalevskaya). The presentation of a letter string leads to the subsequent activation of several possibleorthographic and phonological word candidates in relatively close correspondence to the input. Forexample all words (orthographic and phonological neighbors) that differ from the presented input inonly one letter position become active. In subsequent stages of word recognition a more carefulanalysis of the input is performed resulting in the reduction of the number of possible lexicalcandidates and finally in the identification of the target word.

The most comprehensive and authoritative account of lexical access in speech production wasoffered by Levelt (1989). Based on Levelt's theory we elaborated the revised model of visual wordrecognition for reception and comprehension (Figure 3).

Figure 3Levelts original (1989) model featured four major stages (conceptualization, formulation,

articulation and self-monitoring) that in our model for speech comprehension assume the reversedposition:

1. Orthographic and phonological decoding of the input: identification of the input (letter string)on a perceptual level and grapheme-phoneme conversion (sounding out) of the word form;

2. Morphemic decoding: morphological analysis - decomposition of a derivative or a compoundword;

3. Lemma selection: cognitive processing of the input integrating orthographic, phonetic andmorphological representations and retrieving a lexical representation (selecting from a numberof potential candidates that were activated).

4. Conceptualization: converting lexical information into a concept (notion);5. Verification (bottom-up processing is replaced by top-down processing to ensure accuracy of

word recognition with the help of contextual clues);6. Inhibitory control.One disputable question in bilingual word recognition process is whether individuals who speak

more than one language selectively access lexical representations in a target language or whether theynon-selectively activate lexical representations in both languages, regardless of the language currentlyin use.

L2 WORD FORM

Orthographic /Phonological

Decoding

MorphemicDecoding

(Decomposition)Form Recognition

Strategy

Lemma Selection

CONCEPT

SemanticRecognition Strategy

Perc

eptu

alLe

vel

Cog

nitiv

eLe

vel

7The language-selective hypothesis postulates that information extracted from the stimulus is sentdirectly to the appropriate set of language-specific representations (Macnamara, 1967). A languageswitch mechanism was first proposed by Penfield and Roberts (1959) who argued that the functionalseparation of languages takes place by an automatic switch at the neurophysiological level (Albert &Obler, 1978).

Kolers (1966) in his experiment asked participants to read passages in one or two languages.Comprehension was unaffected by mixing the languages, but speed of reading was slower in themixed-language condition. Kolers concluded that the meanings of words are represented in a language-free form in long-term memory, while a time consuming language switch at the decoding level ensureslanguage-specific lexical access. By guiding sensory information to the appropriate lexical system, thelanguage switch thus enables the bilingual to avoid interference from the inappropriate language.However, the idea of an input switch has been subsequently dismissed on the basis of further empiricalevidence.

The language non-selective hypothesis proposes, on the other hand, that the information fromlanguage input can come in contact with lexical representations from both languages as a result of theirorthographic or phonological overlap with the input. The evidence from interlingual homographs andcognates in experiments in word recognition has consistently demonstrated that bilinguals are unableto selectively activate one of their languages. Bilingual language comprehension involves parallel,simultaneous, language non-selective activation of both languages during visual (Kroll & Stewart,1994; Van Hell & De Groot, 1998; Dijkstra, De Bruijn, Schriefers, & Brinke, 2000; Dijkstra, Grainger,& Van Heuven, 1999; Jared & Kroll, 2001; Jared & Szucs, 2002; Van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger,1998; Von Studnitz & Green, 2002; Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002) and auditory word recognition (e.g.,Spivey & Marian, 1999).

Parallel activation is irrespective of script differences across languages. Evidence from Chinese-English and Russian-English bilinguals, notably the presence of cross-linguistic phonological effects,indicates script differences are not used as a language node cue to restrict language selection process.

Furthermore, evidence of non-selectivity persists irrespective of the surrounding language context,task instructions, or participants' expectations to process one or multiple languages (Dijkstra et al.,2000b; Dijkstra & Van Hell, 2003). Research has provided compelling evidence for the conjecture thatlexical access is non-selective and driven by the stimulus properties of the input, and not by theintentions of the reader. However, Dijkstra points out that particular tasks or experimentalcircumstances might induce language-specific access. Specific task instructions or stimulus listcomposition can have an inhibitory effect on bilingual word recognition. Nevertheless, bilinguals can'tfully suppress one of their languages at will (Brysbaert, Van Dyck, and Van de Poel, 1999).

In an attempt to reconcile language selectivity and non-selectivity F. Grosjean introduced theconcept of "language mode" or "speech mode" (1994, 1997a, 1998a) to define the state of activation ofthe bilingual's languages and language processing mechanisms at a given point in time. Bilingualspeakers may be in a bilingual mode or a monolingual mode depending on the situational continuum.In the bilingual mode bilingual knows he/she is interacting with another bilingual speaker; both of hislanguages are activated to a certain degree which prompts instances of interference, code-switching,code-mixing and borrowings. In the monolingual communicative setting bilinguals will restrictthemselves to one language only, i.e. will be in a monolingual mode. One of the languages will bedeactivated or consciously inhibited (Green, 1998). Bilinguals constantly unconsciously or consciouslyshift along the continuum so that their languages are always at different levels of activation. There area number of factors that affect the language mode such as interlocutors, content and function of thediscourse, setting, context, specific task demands, the level of the bilinguals proficiency in eachlanguage, attitude towards language mixing etc. For example if a bilingual is in the company ofmonolinguals he is in a monolingual mode, but if they start speaking of the book that the bilingual hadread before in his other language it can trigger his shift to a bilingual mode. This principle applies bothto language production and language reception and comprehension. According to Grosjean, thebilingual's language mode affects perception and the speed of access to one or two lexicons.

8From the perspective of the second language acquisition theory the notion of language modeprovides an interesting context in which to explore the changes that accompany increased L2proficiency. Specifically what sort of developmental processes must occur to enable the learner toachieve cognitive control over the relative influence of the factors that determine language mode?When less fluent individuals attempt to assume a monolingual mode in L2 or bilingual language modethere will be processing costs, if those states require active inhibition of one language, or selectiveattention to cues in the language environment.

Mental LexiconWe store a great deal of information about the properties of words in our mental lexicon, and we

retrieve this information when we understand or produce speech. Lexical retrieval in both productionand reception is assisted by the way in which lexical entries and concepts are stored in the mind.Current models envisage them as linked by a complex interactive hierarchical network ofinterconnections (e.g.: visual dictionary http://www.visuwords.com).

Figure 4

All lexical unites enter into two types of associative relationships: intrinsic (phonological,morphological, semantic, syntactic) and purely associative. According to Levelt, intrinsic semanticrelationships include characterization (hypo/hyperonimic sets), similarity (synonymic sets) andcontrast (antonyms) (as seen in Figure 4). Words with common semantic features are grouped intobundles called semantic fields. According to Levelt, associative connections are not conditioned bymeaning but rather by the frequency of co-occurrence in the language (e.g.: CHAIR-TABLE, CHAIR-MEETING). The connections between words differ in strength, with CHAIR-TABLE much strongerthan CHAIR-BED.

9Associative connections within the mental lexicon depend on the sensory modality of perceptionof the input. For example: a word such as CHAIR has links to others in the lexical set of furniture. But,for listeners, it also has links to words such as CARE that resemble it phonologically and, for readers,links to words such as CHAIN which resemble it orthographically.

Listeners and readers are assisted by a process of spreading activation. On encountering a wordsuch as doctor, they automatically activate closely linked words such as nurse or patient, and thusrecognize them more readily if and when they occur. This phenomenon is otherwise known assemantic priming effect, which measures how much faster words are identified when preceded by aword that appears to be associated with them.

The architectural organization of bilingual mental lexicon reveals a complex multidimensionalstructure: nucleus and periphery; surface- and deep-structure tiers.

Meara argues that all previous research treats the bilingual's lexicon as though it consisted of oneor two undifferentiated wholes. He concludes that there is no reason to assume that all the words in thelexicon should behave in the same way as each other, and just as words are differentiated in thelexicons of monolingual speakers in terms of frequency, length, and other similar objectivecharacteristics, it is quite likely that similar features may produce subsets of words in the bilingual'smental lexicon which also have quite different behavioural properties. From this perspective it isinappropriate to ask whether the bilingual's two word stores are integrated or independent as wholes,and it might make much more sense to assume that some words will be integrated while others willnot, and thus to shift the focus of attention to individual words and semantic fields.

Wolter (2001) through investigating how depth of word knowledge affects the connections of L2word with other lexical items in the mental lexicon, found that the better known a particular word was,the more central the position it occupied in the lexicon. Nucleus contains high-frequency concretewords (nouns and adjectives). According to van Hell and de Groot (1998) concrete words might bestored together in the bilingual memory due to a shared conceptual representation. Paradigmaticconnections are formed in the centre, syntagmatic associations are typically further outside.Phonological responses ("clang" associations) are found on the periphery, indicating that connection toother words becomes looser as the speakers knowledge of the depth of a word decreases. Accordingto Wolter, phonological links are located on the periphery indicating that a word is not known wellenough to establish paradigmatic or syntagmatic meaningful connections. However this generalizationis not always true: phonologically similar rhyming responses can sometimes represent an associationstrategy regardless of the learner's word knowledge.

Several conclusions could be drawn from the above mentioned theories confirming the findingsof previous research studies. Firstly, the better-known an L2 word is, the more central position itoccupies in the learners mental lexicon. Secondly, word pairs of concrete nouns tend to be storedtogether in memory. Nouns have a significant organizing role in learners bilingual lexicon.

On the surface tier of mental lexicon word forms are stored together with their formalrepresentations (phonemic form phonological representation, graphic form orthographicrepresentation). Access to the word form requires minimal intellectual effort and cognitive energy.Identification on a formal level is a prerequisite to proceeding to accessing the deep level of semanticfeatures and meanings of words that are stored on the deep-structure tier. Words are grouped on thebasis of semantic relevancy. Deep-structure connections between words are formed involving themechanism of deep predication (Zalevskaya, Luria).

With regard to the structure and organization of the mental lexicon, it is important to discusswhat kind of information is contained in it. It has been acknowledged that mental lexicon containsconcepts, word forms, word meanings (semantic knowledge).

Levelt claims that the smallest unit of mental lexicon is not a word but a lemma. A word'smeaning as a whole is represented by a network of relations (Collins & Loftus, 1975, and Collins &Quillian, 1969). Bock & Levelt (1994) worked out network model of mental lexicon with three levelsof representation: the conceptual level, the lemma level, and the lexeme level. In this view knowledgeof words involves three types of information. First, knowledge of a word's meaning (e.g.: a sheep is akind of domestic animal, that produces milk and wool; these are properties of a lexical concept

10

SHEEP). Second, syntactic properties of a word (e.g.: sheep is a noun; verbs can be transitive orintransitive). Syntactic properties of a word in their entirety are represented by a lemma. Lemmascontrast with lexemes, which capture the word's form properties: morphological and phonologicalshape (e.g., sheep is monomorphemic and consists of three phonological segments).

A part of this lexical network is shown in Figure 5. It depicts some of the knowledge we haveabout the words sheep and goat. The easiest way to induce concept node activation is to present apicture for naming. The assumption is that the picture activates the concept. An active lexical conceptspreads its activation to all connected concept nodes. So if the SHEEP node is active, the GOAT nodewill receive some activation as well (either directly, or via mediating nodes such as ANIMAL orMILK). In addition, activation will spread from the lexical concept node to the corresponding lemmanode. In this framework, lexical selection is selection of the appropriate lemma node. So, if SHEEP isthe active lexical concept, the lemma sheep should be retrieved. It would be an error of selection ifgoat were retrieved. There is nonetheless a small chance for such a mishap, because some activationspreads from SHEEP to GOAT and from there to the lemma goat. The described process is defined aslexicalization of the concept. A similar task is achieved in an association experiment (see further), onlyinstead of a picture the stimulus for lexicalization is a word form.

Figure 5 A part of the lexical network.The most dramatic reflection of the rift between the lemma and lexeme levels is the so-called tip-

of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomenon. It was described by William James (1890) and later discussed byWoodworth (1938) and systematically studied for the first time by R. Brown and McNeill (1966). Interms of the network model, the TOT phenomenon is a failure to access the lexeme from the lemma.

11

The speaker knows the meaning to be expressed (i.e., the concept) and the word's syntax (the lemma).Only the word form (the lexeme) is blocked (A. S. Brown, 1991; Levelt, 1989).

The main drawback of Levelt's model is that it does not differentiate concepts from semantics.Researchers polemicize over the definitions of conceptual and semantic knowledge. Although in L1production the two are considered inseparable, as regards the L2 lexicon, there is still an ongoingdebate whether the two can and should be differentiated or not (Pavlenko, 1999).

When speaking about bilingual lexicon the primary question to be addressed is whether secondlanguage learner possesses one or two separate lexicons for words in each language (Golland and Kroll2001 Francis 1999). How do two or more languages co-exist in the mind? There are three possiblepermutations:

a) languages exist separately from each other (dual language system hypothesis);b) languages intertwine, fuse with one another and concepts are interrelated (unitary language

system hypothesis);c) languages exist separately but share common semantic and conceptual representations.

According to the unitary language system hypothesis (Geneese & Nicoladis, 2006) bilingualshave one, undifferentiated language system which is not identical to the language organization inmonolinguals. Paul Meara hypothesizes that words in a second language are integrated in some waywith words in the first language to form a complex whole lexicon. Stroop colour test adjusted forEnglish-French bilinguals found that bilinguals are generally aware of the language in which words arepresented, and they use language node cue as a classifying label more successfully than they use othermore arbitrary coding features such as colour. The results of the test show clearly than when some kindof cognitive operation other than simple recall of the phonetic form is called for, it becomes extremelydifficult to keep two languages apart. In this sense, forms in one language clearly evoke thecorresponding related forms in the other language, a finding which would be very difficult to explain ifthe independent lexicons claim were true.

Some researchers suggested that lexical forms were represented separately but shared a commonsemantic (concept) system (Potter, So, Von Ekardt, and Feldman 1984; Smith 1997; Paradis, 1994).However this conjecture was refuted later on the premise that at least under some circumstanceslexical representations may be integrated (Van Heuven Dijkstra, and Grainger, 1998) and althoughcertain core aspects of semantic representations may be converging across languages, differences inusage and contexts may limit the extent to which the semantics are shared (De Groot 1993, Pavlenko1999).

Separate lexicon models tend to be associated with selective access whereas integrated modelsassume non-selective (parallel) access (Van Heuven 1998). However by itself, independence oflexicons does not imply language-selective access. Theoretically, it is perfectly acceptable to think thattwo separate lexicons of a bilingual are activated simultaneously to the extent that the input matchesrepresentations within each lexicon (Van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998).

Research has verified that there is a shared bilingual lexicon, and the lexical items of bothlanguages compete for word selection. Mearas studies (1982, 1984 as cited in Wolter, 2001) indicatedthat connections in the L2 lexicon are less stable than those of native speakers, phonology plays a moresignificant role in the organization of the L2 lexicon and semantic links are systematically differentfrom those of native speakers. Wolter (2001) found that for well-known words native and non-nativemental lexicons were found to be structurally different, whereas for less well-known words they werefound to be similar. This is also supported by Wilks and Meara (2002), who claimed that there arehigher numbers of connections at the core of the lexicon than at the periphery, and postulated that thenetwork structure of L1 and L2 lexicon might differ because L1 lexical items are more connected thanL2 ones. According to Wolter (2001), it is the depth of word knowledge that might play a pivotal rolein establishing to what extent individual words are integrated into the structure of the L1 and L2lexicons.

As for the conceptual organization of the mental lexicon, several models have been put forward.The hierarchical network model (Collins & Quillian, 1969, 1970, 1972) claims that concepts are

organized as pyramids with superordinate ones (e.g., plant) at the top, more specific ones in the

12

middle (flower) and subordinate ones (e.g., rose) at the bottom; and each word is only linked to theclosest concept. Some typical features of the model include cognitive economy (the more typical asemantic feature is, the higher the level it is stored) and category size effect (the larger the category,the longer the time the search takes).

Feature comparison model (Smith, Shoben & Rips, 1974) assumes that two different types ofcharacteristics are stored: defining features (which are indispensable for a category to be included) andcharacteristic ones (which are typical but not necessary). For example, a defining feature is that allbirds have feathers, while a typical one is that they fly (which is not true for all the birds).

The spreading activation model (Collins, 1969, 1970) represents concepts as connected nodeswith differing lengths of line between different concepts, based on the degree of their association. Forexample, the degree of association is higher between concepts such as parrot and speaks than betweenparrot and skin, which means that in the former case the connection between the concepts is strongerand shorter.

Out of the three theories the spreading activation model is the most well-founded, for tworeasons. Firstly, although it is a network of associations, its structure does not imply a rigid hierarchy,but allows for words to be related to several others. Secondly, there is no need to distinguish betweendefining and characteristic features, because the stronger the association, the closer the connectionbetween the two concepts. Aitchisons cobweb theory (2003) is very similar to this: in her view,words are connected to each other in a way that one lexical item might be directly linked with severalother lexical items on the basis of phonology, orthography, syntax or semantics.

Conceptual ApproachEarly accounts of the bilinguals cognitive system examined the issue of how a foreign language

learner who already has a fully-fledged lexicon and conceptual system for their native languagerepresents newly acquired information in a second language. An important feature of L2 vocabularyacquisition for adult learners is that new words must be linked to old concepts. The problem ofacquiring new L2 vocabulary is not simply a matter of adding new information to memory and linkingit appropriately, but also a matter of negotiating the increased ambiguity and competition that theinclusion of the new L2 information entails. This competition undoubtedly affects word recognitionprocess in second language. Consequently the question of the relationship between concepts and L2words is to be addressed. How L2 words are converted into concepts in the mind of a second languagelearner? To what extent do the conceptual representations of translation equivalents in a bilingualstwo languages overlap or diverge? These questions relates to, but go beyond the issue of whether abilingual individual has two separate lexical systems each associated with separate underlyingconceptual representations or an integrated, shared system.

Traditionally, a long-standing debate has the adherents of "a double store" hypothesis (Kolers,1963; Gerard & Scarborough, 1989) on one side and the proponents of "a single store" hypothesis(Ehri, Ryan, 1980) on the other side. Paradis put forward a compromise "three-store" hypothesis,which postulates that a bilingual has two mental lexicons and a single concept system which isconnected with L1 and L2 vocabularies (Paradis 1979, 1980, 1994, 1997). He differentiates betweenword forms (orthographic and phonological forms with their syntactic properties), word meanings(which are often language-dependent), and conceptual features (the nonlinguistic mentalrepresentations underlying human thought). Paradis model builds on a proposal by Kolers (1968) thatbilinguals either store all information centrally in one store and have access to it equally or store it intwo separate conceptual stores, one associated with each language. Paradis suggested that there may bea single conceptual store but that languages differ in how they organize experience and thusdifferentially access the common conceptual-experiential store. In addition, Paradis ventured that L1may depend more on implicit, procedural memory because it has been acquired spontaneously,whereas L2 depends more on explicit, declarative memory if it has been acquired largely throughformal school instruction.

Francis (1999) has reviewed the extensive literature on this topic and concluded that the evidencesupports a single, integrated concept representation view. At the same time, however, cross-language

13

effects on a variety of tasks ranging from priming to Stroop test typically tend to be weaker thancomparable same-language effects, suggesting that although a bilinguals languages may access acommon conceptual system, the mapping of lexical to conceptual referents and perhaps even thenature of the conceptual referents themselves may differ across the two languages (Paradis, 1979; deGroot, 1992; de Groot, Dannenburg, & Van Hell, 1994).

Researchers of bilingual language processing and lexical storage and retrieval proposed thefollowing models of correlation between lexical and conceptual representations. These models providea starting point for understanding how a learners cognitive system adapts to the presence of a secondlanguage.

Potter, So, Von Eckardt, and Feldman (1984) contrasted two alternative models for how a learnermight integrate new L2 knowledge into their existing L1 language system. According to the WordAssociation model, associations are formed between new L2 words and their corresponding translationequivalents in L1. In this view, L2 lexical and conceptual access is mediated by L1. In contrast, theConcept Mediation model assumes that L2 words have direct access to their respective meaningswithout L1 activation. Kroll found evidence that the choice of model depends on the level ofproficiency: novice bilinguals tend to use the word association model while expert bilinguals revert toconcept mediation model.

Distributed Model (Conceptual Feature Model) (De Groot, 1992; 1994; 1995). A bilingualindividual has a single concept system which has a common center (converging elements of meaning)and two separate peripheral sectors (language-specific elements of meaning). Therefore, the meaningof correlating words in L1 and L2 is manifested not in one shared concept but is distributed in thegroup of conceptual bundles which results in partial divergence in the meaning of translationequivalents. Single words are connected to concepts and the same word might be representeddifferently or similarly in L1 and L2. De Groot claims that some words (e.g., concrete words such aschair) might have the same conceptual representation in the two languages, others may overlappartially (e.g., abstract words such as winter in English and Russian), while for certain words therepresentations in the two languages might differ completely or may not exist altogether (as is the casewith zero reference or lacunae).

The above results have been explained in terms of distributed feature model of bilingual memoryrepresentation (Figure 6) in which concepts are represented as distributed features (De Groot, 1995;Kroll & De Groot, 1997; Van Hell, 1998). According to this model, concrete words are more likelythan abstract words to share meaning across languages and cultures. Concrete words in differentlanguages are proposed to access a shared set of semantic features because the perceptual objects towhich they refer are typically similar. In contrast, abstract words in different languages are assumed tohave only partial meaning overlap because differences in the linguistic and cultural contexts in whichthey are used will determine their meaning. Thus, when a bilingual translates an abstract word, onlysome of the semantic features activated for that language will overlap completely with the semanticfeatures of the translation equivalent in the other language.

Figure 6 Distributed Feature Model of bilingual memory representation

14

Subgroup Model (Paradis 1984). Lexical representations of the languages form relativelyindependent groups in the individual lexicon of the learner capable of being accessed separately. Incase the connection between L2 word and L1 word is stronger interlingual subgroups are formed;when connections between lexical units of the target language (L2) are strengthened intralingualsubgroups are formed.

Hierarchical Asymmetrical Models (Potter, So, von Eckhardt & Feldman, 1984; Kroll & Stewart,1994; Kroll & Tokowicz).

Hierarchical models of bilingual language representation integrate the Word Association andConcept Mediation models. They typically distinguish between two levels of processing: a conceptuallevel and a lexical level. At the conceptual level concepts are stored in one common conceptual store,regardless of the language of input. At the lexical level words of the two languages are represented inseparate lexicons. These two lexical stores are connected to one another and to a common conceptualstore.

Researchers (Centowska, 2006; Kroll, 1993; De Groot & Comijs, 1995) generally agree that theselection of the processing route, whether access to meaning from L2 is direct or mediated through L1,depends on the direction of processing, forward or backward processing (from L1 to L2 or vice versa).Translation in the forward direction, from L1 into L2, requires concept mediation, in other words two-step processing: L1C, CL2. That is why it is typically slower and more error prone. Unlike this, translation in the backward direction, from L2 into L1, is lexically mediated and proceeds directly viaword association, i.e. it's a one-step process: L2L1. The translation asymmetry is consistent with this account but can also be attributed to difficulties in accessing the phonology of the weaker L2.

Kroll and Stewart (1994) proposed a Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual representation,which attempts to accommodate the potential consequences of the developmental process to accountfor the change in the connections between words and concepts as L2 skill develops.

Connections between lexical and conceptual representations of words are asymmetric. Accordingto the model, the early dependence on L1 to mediate access to meaning for L2 words creates anasymmetry in the form of interlanguage connections. At the lexical level, connections from L2 to L1are thought to be stronger than connections from L1 to L2. This asymmetry may arise in part from thereliance of L2 on L1, and also as a consequence of the differential nature of the mappings from a smalllexicon, L2, to a large lexicon, L1. As L2 learners know many L1 words for which they do not have L2translation equivalents, the lexical mappings from L1 to L2 would be insufficient and unreliable.

At the conceptual level, the model postulates strong connections for L1 words, but relativelyweaker connections for L2 words. RHM proposes that the L1 is more likely than L2 to initiateconceptual processing and thus L1 connections to concepts are stronger than those for L2.

The more prominent is the link from L2 word form to its L1 translation equivalent than from L2word to the concept due to the fact that new L2 words are often learned by associating them with theirL1 translations (De Groot & Nas, 1991). However the latter become stronger with increasingproficiency so that the meaning of L2 words can be retrieved directly.

Figure 7 Words in each language (L1 and L2) are interconnected via lexical-level links and conceptual links. The lexical-level links arestronger from L2 to L1 (solid line) than from L1 to L2 (dashed line) but the conceptual links are stronger for L1 (solid line) than for L2(dashed line).

15

The initial evidence for the revised hierarchical model came from translation asymmetry from L1to L2 than translation from L2 to L1 (De Groot, Dannenburg, & Van Hell, 1994; Kroll & Stewart,1994; Sanchez-Casas, Davis, & Garca-Albea, 1992; Sholl, Sankaranarayanan, & Kroll, 1995).

In the experiment of out-of-context single word translation task with highly proficient Dutch-English bilinguals by Kroll and Stewart (1994) the translation asymmetry observed suggests that thelexical-level connections established during early stages of acquisition do not disappear but may stillcontinue to function under some circumstances once individuals become fluent bilinguals. In thepresence of contextual support available in normal language use, this effect might be expected todisappear (La Heij, Kerling & Van der Velden, 1996).

From the perspective of the RHM, the results of the Kroll, Dufour et al. (1998) study appear toconverge on the conclusion that individuals at early stages of second language learning have difficultyin conceptually mediating L2. However, the question whether the difficulty that second languagelearners experience in concept mediation is attributable to difficulty in accessing concepts for L2words or in using activated conceptual information to direct lexicalization to L2 remains disputable.

Dufour and Kroll (1995) tested the RHM in the experiment of a semantic categorization task withmore or less fluent bilinguals. Contrary to the hypothesis of th RHM, Dufour and Kroll reported thatless fluent bilinguals appeared to be capable of retrieving conceptual information directly for L2words. The results of the Altarriba and Mathis (1997) study suggest that even novice bilinguals areable to conceptually mediate L2.

Additional evidence comes from a post hoc analysis reported by Talamas et al. (1999). The resultsupports the claim that early in L2 acquisition, conceptual mediation is not possible and thatindividuals must rely on a lexical strategy for recognizing L2 words. However, less fluent bilingualswere sensitive to semantic relations, but only when the word pairs had been rated as highlysemantically similar.

RHM was subject to strong criticism on the premise that it is overly generalized and does nottake into account many variables: different types of mental representations of words, inhibitory controlmechanisms etc. M. Brysbaert & W. Duyck suggest that first, there is little evidence for separatelexicons. Second, there is little evidence for language selective access. Third, the inclusion ofexcitatory connections between translation equivalents at the lexical level is likely to impede wordrecognition. Fourth, the connections between L2 words and their meanings are stronger than proposedin RHM. And finally, a distinction should be made between language-dependent and language-independent semantic features. It is argued that the Revised Hierarchical Model cannot easily beadapted to incorporate these challenges and that a more fruitful way forward is to start from existingcomputational models of monolingual language processing and see how they can be adapted forbilingual input and output, as has been done in the Bilingual Interactive Activation model.

Interactive Activation Models (IA-Models)Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA-Model) (first described by Grainger & Dijkstra in

1992 and implemented by van Heuven, Dijkstra & Grainger in 1998).This is a generic connectionist model simulating bilingual visual word recognition performance

under conditions in which the words to be recognized differ in their within and across-languageorthographic properties (Van Heuven et al., 1998).

Both lexical systems are stored together and lexical access is language non-selective: twolanguages are activated simultaneously and automatically even when the speech situation is restrictedto one of them. Inhibitory control mechanisms limit cross-language interference. The BIA modeldistinguishes four hierarchically organized levels of linguistic representations:

- letter features;- letters;- words;- language nodes (tags).

This model assumes that there is parallel activation of letter features, letters, and words, similarto the input string which produces competition across alternative candidates. The BIA model makes

16

use of language nodes to control and suppress potential interference generated by non-target languagerepresentations. The language node mechanism in the BIA model is represented by top-downinhibitory control. After a complex interactive process of activation and inhibition the lexical candidatecorresponding to the stimulus becomes the most active unit.

The BIA model takes into account resting level activation, i.e. the subjective frequency (thenumber of times the learner encountered or used the word in an appropriate context) and the recency ofuse (if a word has not been used for a while its resting level activation progressively decreases).Context effects operate on the level of language nodes (L2 suppresses L1).

There is strong evidence in favour of excitatory connections between translation equivalents inthe early phases of L2 vocabulary acquisition and the evidence that such direct connection is no longerpresent in bilinguals with higher level of proficiency. The question that presents particular interest ishow bilingual word recognition system evolves from the former state to the latter? This question couldhave pedagogical implications on the development of SLA theory.

An updated version of the BIA model BIA+ implemented by Dijkstra & Van Heuven (2002) is afurther extension and refinement of BIA model. It contains not only orthographic representations andlanguage nodes but also phonological and semantic representations. These representations are part andparcel of word identification system. Non-linguistic context affects word recognition indirectly viatask / decision system; it determines the way information from the identification system is used but notthe activation state of word candidates. In contrast, linguistic context (sentence or preceding words)interacts directly with word recognition system, i.e. semantic and syntactic aspects of the sentencecontext can modulate the activation of lexical candidates and provide semantic constraints forrecognition.

Figure 8Developmental Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA-d) is designed by Grainger et al. to

demonstrate the changes in the learner's word identification system with increasing proficiency in thetarget language.

It is based on the following principles:- both languages always remain active;

17

- co-activated representations from irrelevant languages affect target language processingtriggering cross-language transfer and interference effects;

- top-down inhibitory control suppresses interference.The subject of this model is a relatively late L2 learner. Initial exposure to L2 generates in the

mind of the learner direct connectivity between L2 words and its translation equivalents in L1 that arestrengthened with increasing exposure. At the same time with the overall expansion of L2 vocabularydirect connections begin to emerge between L2 lexical representations and the appropriate pre-existingsemantic representations (concepts). As the direct links between L2 words and semantics (conceptualrepresentations) are further strengthened the connections between translation equivalents are becomingweaker up to the point of complete disappearance (Midgley et al. 2009) (the practical evidence for thistheory is that sometimes translation from L2 to L1 presents significant difficulty for highly proficientlearners whereas giving the definition in the target language is relatively effortless and a morepreferable task). This is the critical threshold moment in the evolution of L2 proficiency. Somebilinguals define it as 'magic moment' in L2 acquisition when suddenly comprehension and productionbecomes significantly less effortful.

Figure 9Grainger attributes this qualitative shift in bilingual word identification system to an improved

cognitive control over L2 language activation that becomes necessary with the quantitative growth ofvocabulary. This improved cognitive control corresponds to the development of the ability to globallyinhibit L1 lexical representations while processing L2 stimuli and vice versa. Language nodes areresponsible for cognitive control. Grainger points out that control mechanisms are obviouslyinconsistent with excitatory connections between translation equivalents in L1 and L2.

The BIA-d model takes into account vocabulary acquisition, constraints associated with learningwords in L2 once L1 is well-established. It is applicable to late L2 learning in the classroom setting.The model is initially designed for languages that have the same alphabet however as recent studiessuggest it can be applied to languages that do not share the same script (Russian-English) as well. Inthis view, each word is linked via mutually excitatory connections to certain semantic features and toorthographically similar words that do not share the same semantics with the stimulus.

According to BIA-d model, there are two distinctive overlapping phases of L2 vocabularyacquisition in late L2 learners that acquire the language essentially in the classroom environment: aninitial phase of supervised learning which is progressively replaced by unsupervised learning. The shifttowards L2 autonomy is reinforced by the development of top-down inhibitory control from the L2language node. Recent evidence for the role of L1 inhibition during L2 acquisition has been providedby Levy, McVeigh, Marful & Anderson (2007) and Link, Kroll and Sunderman (2009). Link et al.suggest that immersion in an L2 environment is critical for the development of L1 inhibition andspeeding up the process of establishing direct connections between L2 words and concepts.

Thus, the following developmental changes occur in the word identification and in the mentallexicon of a learner:

a. excitatory connections from L2 word forms to semantics gradually increase;

18

b. inhibitory connections from the L2 language node to L1 word forms gradually increase;c. excitatory connections between L2 word forms and their L1 translation equivalents gradually

increase and then decrease as the inhibitory input from the L2 language node increases;d. inhibitory connections develop from the L2 word form to other orthographically (or

phonetically if the languages do not share script) similar words in L2 and L1.This model perfectly depicts the process of gradual integration and internalization of L2 words

(with within and cross-language connectivity) into bilingual mental lexicon.The indisputable advantage of BIA-d model of bilingual language processing is that it takes into

account all variables of L2 visual word recognition process: semantics (conceptual system); languagenodes, interlingual and intralingual interference effects; dynamic process of language acquisition (incontrast with other static models); applicability to different languages.

The Inhibitory Control Model (IC Model) (Green, 1998).This model focuses on the importance of task demands and the cognitive control (restriction) that

language users can exert on the language processing and word recognition by modifying levels ofactivation. However, the empirical results on word recognition and language production support thenotion that the activity of each language is not determined by task demands alone; both languagesappear to be active even when the task requires attention to one language alone. Green (1998)proposed a framework for characterizing the problem that the bilingual faces when selectivelyattending to only one of his or her two languages. How does a bilingual prevent him or herself fromblurting out utterances in the wrong language? The focus of the inhibitory control model is not on thenature of lexical and/or semantic representations per se, but rather on the regulatory processes thatpermit a bilingual to perform a given task in one language rather than the other.

Evidence for the role of an inhibitory control mechanism comes from experiments on languageswitching (e.g. Meuter & Allport, 1999; Von Studnitz & Green, 1997). When bilinguals are required toswitch from one language to the other in production tasks, greater costs, in the form of increasedresponse latencies, are observed when switching into the more dominant L1 than into the weaker L2(Meuter & Allport, 1999).

Because L1 is likely to be active during the processing of L2, it will be necessary to inhibit L1 toachieve L2 performance goals. If the subsequent trial requires that L1 itself be processed, there willthen be costs that correspond to the degree of inhibition required on the prior trial. In contrast, whenL2 follows L1, the relative inhibitory costs will be smaller because L2, as a consequence of itsrelatively lower level of activity, will not have to be inhibited to the same degree, or at all, during L1processing.

The cornerstone of this model is the language task schema that specifies the mental processingsteps (or action sequences) that a language user takes to perform a particular language task. Alanguage task schema regulates the output from the word identification system by altering theactivation levels of representations (lemmas) and inhibiting output within the system (e.g.: intranslation tasks the language user has to switch from the input language of the stimulus to the outputlanguage) (Green, 1998). The task schema suppresses lemmas by means of the language nodes (tags)at the stage of lexical selection after lexical candidates have been activated.

Green (1998) proposed a related explanation for the translation asymmetry described by Krolland Stewart (1994). He argued that the asymmetry results as a consequence of differential inhibitoryprocesses that are required to perform the two translation tasks. Forward translation, from L1 to L2, ishypothesized to require significant suppression of L1 because the more active L1 lemmas will competefor output with L2. Backward translation, from L2 to L1, will not require comparable suppression ofL2 because L2 is hypothesized to be less active, and therefore will not generate as much competitionfor output.

Like Grosjeans (1997, 1998) claims about language mode, Greens (1998) proposal forinhibitory control assigns at least some responsibility to mechanisms other than the mentalrepresentations themselves in explaining why performance differs from one bilingual task to the nextas well as from one bilingual individual to another. By this account, what should develop with

19

increasing fluency is not simply enriched mental representations of L2, but also the skill to allocatememory and attentional resources appropriately to achieve the desired language goals.

The observation of parallel activity across the two languages during visual word recognition doesnot necessarily suggest that similar cross-language activation occurs during auditory processing of thespeech signal. Since languages differ in their component sounds it can be argued that within the speechsignal there are language-specific cues that are not as readily available within printed text.

The advantage of the IC model is hat it emphasizes that bilingual language processing alwaysoccurs within a particular task context and with certain goals in mind. The idea of top-down inhibitionof lexical representations (lemmas) was proposed by Levelt.

Cross-Language ApproachMany studies have demonstrated that visual word recognition in L2 is affected by the reader's L1

(e.g., Wang, Koda, & Perfetti, 2003). The subsequent question to be addressed is to what extent doesnative language or any other language known to the learner influence word processing and wordrecognition in L2? What's the degree of facilitation and interference?

Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (1986) suggested the term "crosslinguistic influence" to define theprocesses known as cross-language transfer and interference. Odlin (1989) offers his workingdefinition of transfer as the influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the targetlanguage and any other language that has been previously acquired.

Transfer from L1 to L2 is positive for interlingual cognate and is negative (interference) forinterlingual homophones. There are many areas of cross-language interference effects: phonology(accents), orthography (esp. English-French literature littrature), vocabulary (magazine-magasin),semantic, grammatical (morphological and syntactic), conceptual, stylistic (register), pragmatic.

Zalevskaya states that the possibility of relying on L1 in vocabulary processing and wordrecognition lies in the convergence of semantic structure of the word equivalents in two languages.The prerequisite is that lexical valency and combinability of words coincide in both languages. Thusby means of inner disguised translation interlingual analogy is established which leads to cross-language recognition strategy (Weinreich). The basis of interlingual word recognition is similarity inform, distribution, meaning or all of the above. Cross-language identifications exist at any stage ofsecond language acquisition and at any level of proficiency. Cross-language identification manifestsitself primarily in the recognition of interlingual homographs and cognates.

The instance of interlingual interference is defined in world psycholinguistics as bidirectionalcross-linguistic interaction between L1 and L2 in bilingual learners presupposing that L1 influences L2and vice versa. Difficulty of keeping foreign languages apart was noted by Schmidt and Frota (1986).Bidirectional Modal of Bilingualism ventures a suggestion that with increasing proficiency in L2 itbecomes more dominant and starts to influence L1 comprehension and production. So the interferencepattern acquires a reversed character.

The experiment of Kroll, Michael, Elsinger, Tokowicz, & Miller (1997) aimed at ascertainingindividual differences of L2 acquisition showed that during early stages of L2 acquisition, there arecosts to processing L1, at least when the task environment also requires the use of L2. For the lessfluent individuals the activity of L2 may intrude into L1 performance, whereas for fluent bilinguals,there may be greater autonomy associated with each language.

The assessment that L2 learners have approached or achieved near-native or native-likecompetence means that there is little or no perceptible difference between their language performanceand that of native speakers. Because ones L2 system is never exactly the same as the native speakers(even if we cannot readily perceive differences), most of us would not consider the final state of L2development to be completely native. The most likely level of linguistic production to retain someidentifiably foreign feature is pronunciation, especially if L2 learning began after the age of twelveor so.

20

Previous research has examined both the interactions that occur as a new language is beingacquired as well as the interactions that take place during online language comprehension andproduction processes. In terms of the interactions that take place during acquisition, research hasdemonstrated that linguistic characteristics of the native language (L1), such as how phonologically orsyntactically similar it is to the second language (L2) has an effect on its acquisition (e.g., Bosch,Costa, & Sebastian-Galles, 2000; Fernndez, 1998; MacWhinney, 1997).

Word recognition appears to activate lexical candidates in both languages (e.g., Colom, 2001;Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999; Hermans, Bongaerts, De Bot, & Schreuder, 1998). The exampleof that is code-switching in bilinguals or multilinguals. In cross-language competition the activation ofthe alternative in another language doesn't appear to be under the bilingual's control. According toDijkstra, De Bruijn, Shriefers and Ten Brinke (2000) these effects are immune to the effects ofinstruction, specific task demands etc. To negotiate the potential competition across the two languagesbilinguals must develop cognitive inhibitory control mechanisms (e.g., Bialystok, Craik, Klein, &Viswanathan, 2004; Green, 1998).

According to the principle of language non-selective access implemented in the BIA model(Grainger & Dijkstra, 1992) cross-language interference should be observable even in the mostmonolingual processing situation (e.g.: reading a book written in L2) (Grosjean). Experimantalevidence for cross-language interference and language non-selectivity was provided by Dyer (1973),Guttentag, Haith, Goodman & Hauch (1984). Evidence for co-activation of non-target languagesrepresentations during the processing of interlingual homographs (Beauvillain & Grainger 1987; DeGroot, Delmaar & Lupker 2000; Dijkstra, Grainger & van Heuven 1999; Dijkstra, Timmermans &Shriefers 2000) and interlingual homophones (Brysbaert, Van Dyck & Van de Poel 1999; Duyck 2005;Nas 1983; Dijkstra et al. 1999). The experimental findings generally supported the premise thatbilinguals are unable to block interference from the irrelevant languages.

The RHM and the earlier Concept Mediation model share an implicit assumption that onceindividuals achieve sufficient expertise in the L2, the L2 can function automously of the L1 (but seeKroll & De Groot, 1997, for a distributed model at both the lexical and conceptual levels). Thisassumption has been challenged in the recent literature in which cross-language activity has beenobserved for even highly proficient bilinguals. While no one would dispute the fact that bilinguals gainautomaticity in processing the L2 with increasing skill (e.g., Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005), recentstudies suggest that proficiency does not imply an ability to use each of the languages automonously,as if the bilingual were functionally monolingual.

However, a recent study (Sunderman & Kroll) demonstrated that at the lexical level, it is theactivity of the translation equivalent that changes with increasing proficiency, but not the activity oflexical form relatives. When bilinguals read or hear words in one language, there is activation ofrelated information in other language(s). However, what is active for proficient bilinguals is theorthographic and phonological information present in words in the two languages, not the translationequivalent itself. These words are semantically unrelated but share similar lexical form. Sundermanand Kroll showed this type of cross-language activity occurred regardless of L2 proficiency.

The account provided by the RHM with respect to lexical mediation thus appears to characterizethe performance of learners who still depend on the L1 to access meaning and more proficientbilinguals who may resort to this strategy when the words to be translated are relatively low frequencyin the L2 (Kroll and Stewart, 1994).

There is also evidence for cross-language interactions that occur during the onlinecomprehension of language, when recognizing words bilinguals activate lexical and sub-lexical unitsfrom both of their languages in parallel (e.g., Dijkstra et al., 1999; Dijkstra et al., 2000a; Jared & Kroll,2001; Ju & Luce, 2004; Marian & Spivey, 2003; Van Heuven et al., 1998).

The studies reviewed above all focused on cross-language activation that occurs during therecognition of visually presented words. In these studies, effects of cross-language activation may havebeen particularly robust since the visual input (i.e., a string of letters) can be completely languageneutral. Furthermore, there is evidence that even when the languages do not share the same script (e.g.,

21

Hebrew and English or Chinese and English), cross-language priming effects can be observed (e.g.,Gollan, Forster, & Frost, 1997; Jiang, 1999).

There have been a few studies that have examined cross-language interaction during auditoryspeech processing. Spivey and Marian (1999) asked RussianEnglish bilinguals to look at an array ofobjects as they listened to instructions in either their L1 or L2 which indicated an object that theyshould select (e.g., pick up the marker). Instructions indicated a target object whose phonologicalonset was the same as that of another object in the non-target language (e.g., "" (marka) is the Russian equivalent for stamp). To test whether the non-target lexical representation of the object wasactivated, the authors monitored the bilinguals eye-movements as they surveyed the array of objectsand listened to the instructions. When the instructions indicated an object whose phonological onsetwas shared across languages, participants initially looked toward the object that shared this onset in thenon-target language. This indicated that upon hearing the initial, shared phoneme, the bilingualsactivated lexical candidates from both of their languages (Marian & Spivey, 2003).

Cross-language CompetitionThere is ample evidence that the two lexicons of a bilingual are not functionally independent. For

example, word recognition in a given target language has been shown to be influenced by semanticand/or form overlap with words of the non target language (e.g., Christoffanini, Kirsner, & Milech,1986; de Groot, Borgwaldt, Bos, & van den Eijnden, 2002; Dijkstra, Miwa, Brummelhuis, Sappelli,and Baayen, 2010; Haigh & Jared, 2007; Lemhfer & Dijkstra, 2004), and it can be primed by, forexample, form-overlapping words from the other language (Brysbaert, Van Dyck & Van de Poel,1999; Dijkstra, Hilberink-Schulpen, & van Heuven, 2010; Kim & Davis, 2003). It is thus likely thatlexical activation usually spreads across words from both languages. Due to this language-independentlexical activation, it could be argued that bilinguals need to cope with more competition betweensimilar word form representations than monolinguals.

Competition between resembling word form representations (orthographic/phonologicalneighbors) is a central component of computational models based on interactive activation (e.g.,Coltheart et al., 2001; Grainger & Jacobs, 1996; McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981; Perry, Ziegler &Zorzi, 2007). When participants are processing the word bale, the correct representation must bediscriminated from neighbors that also become activated, such as sale and bake; furthermore, L2speakers need to additionally discriminate it from possible neighbors from their first language.Thisphenomenon can be defined as Cross-language neighbourhood effect.

Van Heuven et al. (1988) manipulated potential cross-language interference in the form of wordsfrom non-target language that are orthographically similar to target words (orthographic neighbors).The neighborhood effect across languages triggered cross-linguistic interference that suggested thatprocessing of a given isolated word (in the list of words of one language only) generates activation inorthographically similar words not only within the target language but also in the irrelevant languages.This argument seems to be sufficient enough to demonstrate the language non-selective accessmechanism.

Van Heuven, Dijkstra, and Grainger (1998) reported cross-language neighborhood effects inlexical decision for Dutch-English bilinguals. The time to make a lexical decision in one language wasaffected by the presence of words in both languages that possessed similar orthography to the targetword.

The cross-language neighborhood effect is elusive. Lemhfer et al. (2008) did not replicate thefindings of the previous studies (Groot et al., 2002) and demonstrated that there was no significanteffect of L1 orthographic neighborhood size on L2 performance in bilinguals.

The language-competition hypothesis makes two interesting predictions. First, the exact degreeto which the frequency effect increases should be contingent on how many languages an individualknows (i.e., how many cross-language competitors are activated) and how well they know each ofthese languages (i.e., language proficiency).

With respect to proficiency, the more skilled a bilingual is in one language relative to theother(s), the higher words from this language should be in subjective frequency, and therefore the less

22

susceptible the processing of this language should be to interference from competitors in a non-targetlanguage. The fact that language competition effects (e.g., cognate effects, homograph effects, etc.) areusually larger and more reliable in the processing of a non-dominant (i.e., more susceptible) languageis also consistent with this conjecture (e.g., Caramazza & Brones, 1979; de Groot, et al., 2002).

If L1 is always explicitly present and highly active for the second language learner or less fluentbilingual, then it will produce a variety of processing consequences that will appear as facilitation,when activated information in L1 helps to retrieve the corresponding information in L2, or asinterference, when the information in L1 does not resemble the desired output in L2. This experimentalsetting very well corresponds to formal classroom language acquisition which is also the context of myresearch experiment.

Cross-language competition effects are resolved by cognitive inhibitory control of L1. Thequestion of its development in bilinguals comes to the forefront of our discussion. How do secondlanguage learners solve these control issues to become fluent bilinguals? The results of experimentswhich focus on the performance of highly fluent bilinguals suggest that fluency alone does notdecrease the degree of cross-language activation. Indeed, increased knowledge of L2 may result in anincrease in the level of cross-language competition. Rather, high levels of fluency may be associatedwith skillful negotiation and resolution of competition. The activation associated with multiplemappings from words to concepts may be resolved if L1 can be inhibited.

What is unclear is how to characterize the cues that the L2 learner may use to accomplishinhibition of L1. Particularly when L2 is learned in a classroom context, the cues associated with L1 inthe larger environment may be difficult to ignore. In immersion settings, the environment itself mayprovide cues that are uniquely associated with L2 and thereby reduce the relative advantage of L1.These cues may be overt and perceptual, for example, in the manner in which objects and events areculturally specified. But they may also be more subtle, covert and conceptual, in the sense that nuancesof meaning (semantic features constituting meaning) differ in different cultural contexts. For theclassroom learner, despite the best efforts of language instructors, these cues may not be sufficientlysalient to facilitate the acquisition of cognitive control. The L2 classroom learner is thus faced with thetask of increasing the mappings of words to meaning, a goal which in some sense runs counter to theentire grain of the language processing system in that new words are simply attached to old concepts.In this case, the ability of the learner to generate internal cognitive strategies and cues for processingthe new L2 may be especially critical for word recognition and word comprehension.

The study by Kroll, Michael, & Sankaranarayanan, 1998 on American-Dutch vocabulary provedthat semantic categorization had little effect on word acquisition and recognition (words werecategorized semantically). Cognitive strategy of associating new words to their translation equivalentsin the native language also proved inefficient. However associations to non-canonical picturesdepicting objects in the reversed position had the most effect on memorizing L2 words. It washypothesized that the unusual orientation might slow down the retrieval of L1 word associated with thepicture and therefore facilitate acquisition of the new word. This finding suggests that even surface-level cues in the environment may function to stimulate the L2 usage and briefly suppress access toL1.

Language learners restricted to classroom acquisition of L2 as opposed to individuals who hadexperienced language immersion, in the absence of unique cues associated with L2, are left to theirown devices to engage the second language and to suppress the first language when appropriate.Individuals with high cognitive capacity may be able to develop effective cognitive strategies toimmerse themselves in L2 in the absence of external cues.

The ability to suppress irrelevant information and memory span and /or computational capacityappear to affect the efficiency of L2 vocabulary acquisition.

Kroll, Michael, Elsinger, Tokowicz, & Miller (1997) carried out an experiment to assessindividual differences in more or less fluent bilinguals and their effect on word recognition. Theseresults provide support for the hypothesis that second language learners with higher memory span mayallocate their mental resources to generate strategies that increase conceptual processing, even when itproduces a cost to processing when translation could be accomplished on a more superficial basis.

23

InterlanguageThe term "interlanguage" was coined by Larry Selinker (1972) in recognition of the fact that L2

learners construct a unique approximate transitional linguistic system that is dependent on the learner'snative language (L1) but is different from it as well as from the target language. Interlanguage consistsof a system of abstract linguistic rules called "mental grammar" which is open to outside input at anyone stage of development (Chomsky). Interlanguage is prone to fossilization. Selinker pointed out thatonly 5 % of learners go on to develop the same or near-native language system. In most cases itremains an interlanguage variety.

The concept of interlanguage is a prominent part of SLA theory as it provides a fair account ofhow L2 is acquired. It incorporates elements from mentalist theories such as Chomsky's UniversalGrammar (UG) and Language Acquisition Device (LAD) and elements from cognitive psychology(e.g.: learning strategies).

A number of recent studies have suggested that interlanguage connections are affected not onlyby the proficiency of the bilingual speaker but also by the nature of the words and concepts that aretranslated (e.g., Francis, Tokowicz, & Kroll, 2003). When a small set of lexical items is well learned orhighly practiced, even relative novices may appear to conceptually process words in the L2 (e.g.,Altarriba & Mathis, 1997). However, it is generally believed that the development of L2 proficiencyappears to shift from reliance on lexical cross-language connections to reliance on conceptualinterconnections with increasing skill (e.g., Kroll, Michael, Tokowicz, & Dufour, 2002; Talamas,Kroll, & Dufour, 1999). Although there is controversy with respect to the issue of whether highlyproficient bilinguals ever revert to lexical mediation during translation (e.g., Duyck & Brysbaert, 2004;La Heij, Hooglander, Kerling, & Van der Velden, 1996), the evidence from L2 learners suggests thatthere is an early stage of acquisition in which L1 translations are highly active (Sunderman & Kroll).

Typological (Etymological) ApproachBilingual word recognition is contingent on the interrelation of languages that the bilingual has

sufficient command of. Genetic, typological, and historical relationships of L1 and L2 yielddifferential possibilities for word recognition and positive transfer of parameter settings and surface-level features, including vocabulary and writing system. Since the language non-selective accesshypothesis proved to be consistent it is important to take into account the degree of convergence anddivergence between L1 and L2.

English and Russian are typologically unrelated languages. They do not share the same script andhave small level of lexical similarity. However this should be of little consequence if we fall back onChomsky's Universal Grammar. English and French, on the other hand, share the script and lexicallyvery similar. Naturally we can assume that French-English bilinguals would have less difficultyrecognizing L2 words that Russian-English or Chinese-English. However due to a large number oflexical borrowings and loans a large proportion of words have Latin roots that are easily recognizableacross languages (e.g.: victoire (fr.) victory (eng.) - vittoria (it.) victoria (sp.) (rus.)

There is also sufficient facilitation for recognizing cognates even when the cognates are non-identical (Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002). Across all conditions there was a benefit for translatingcognates than non-cognates (e.g. de Groot et al., 1994; Kroll).

Cross-Cultural ApproachThi