Lexical representation and development in a second language

By Wei Chen. 2000

609 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e291d178ca8c5ee5526e5971ef019668394fed6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. N. Schmitt
2. Stuart Webb
3. Henrik Gyllstad
4. E. Peters
5. Brent Wolter
6. E. Macaro
7. Barbara C. Malt
8. J. Yamashita

In Language and Linguistics

1. N. Schmitt
2. E. Macaro
3. E. Peters
4. Aneta Pavlenko
5. Barbara C. Malt
6. Hossein Nassaji
7. Lili Tian
8. Judith F. Kroll

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. E. Macaro
2. Lili Tian
3. N. Schmitt
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. J. Yamashita
6. Barbara C. Malt
7. Alan Hunt
8. D. Beglar

Citations in the corpus

• Cognitive Processes in Second Language Learners and Bilinguals: The Development of Lexical and Conceptual Representations (2008, background): “Fourth, models of lexical development suggest that during initial L2 acquisition, L1 semantics may be transferred to the new L2 word (e.g., Jiang, 2000).”
• Language attrition and theories of forgetting: A cross-disciplinary review (2004, background): “Such mediated access is analogous to lexical mediation (the word association hypothesis) assumed for early stages of L2 vocabulary acquisition (cf. Hall & Ecke, 2003; Jiang, 2000; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Potter, So, Von Eckardt, & Feldman, 1984).”
• Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native speakers of English (2003, background): “Most importantly, the input needed to master the patterns can only come from extensive observation of object–word pairings, and this sort of observation will come best through immersion in the second language environment (see also Pavlenko, 1999; Jiang, 2000; Dewaele and Regan, 2001; and studies of ”
• Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know? (2002, background): “The relative lateness (or nonachievement) of L2 derivational acquisition Ž ts with a psycholinguistic model posited by Jiang (2000), who suggests that the learning of syntactic and morphological speciŽ cations forms the last stage of L2 word learning and that many words fossilize before this stage.”
• Toward a Model of Motivated Vocabulary Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach (2008, background): “There are many theories/explanations that address specific elements of vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Carey, 1978; de Bot, Paribakht, & Wesche, 1997; Jiang, 2000), but it seems safe to say that no theory to date has been able to capture all of the complexities of the acquisition process.”
• FIRST LANGUAGE ACTIVATION DURING SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL PROCESSING: An Investigation of Lexical Form, Meaning, and Grammatical Class (2006, background): “…been suggested in the literature on vocabulary acquisition is that L2 learners copy the L1 syntactic and semantic information onto the L2 lexical item ~Jiang, 2000!+ If a majority of L2 words become fossilized at this stage and never become fully integrated with L2 specific syntactic, semantic,…”
• Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition (2001, background): “Lexical development under such circumstances is conceivably very different from lexical development in the first language, as suggested by Jiang (2000) .”
• Morphological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: within and cross-language effects on word reading (2010, background): “Some researchers argued that certain aspects of morphological knowledge, such as bound morphemes, are language specific and are unlikely to transfer between first and second language ( Jiang, 2000; Kellerman, 1977, 1983).”
• Morphological insensitivity in second language processing (2004, methodology): “Finally, this view is also endorsed in a transfer-based model of L2 vocabulary acquisition proposed by Jiang (2000) who suggests that inflectional morphology is not an integrated part of lexical representation in the L2 lexicon. He argues that morphological specifications are often language specific”
• FREQUENCY OF INPUT AND L2 COLLOCATIONAL PROCESSING (2013, background): “…; see Kellerman, 1979 ), there are also compelling arguments in favor of the notion that acquisition is more straightforward when there is correspondence between the L1 and L2, at both the single-word level (Jiang, 2000 ) and the collocational level (Wolter, 2006 ; Yamashita & Jiang, 2010 ).”
• The Effect of Focus on Form and Focus on Forms Instruction on the Acquisition of Productive Knowledge of L2 Vocabulary by Young Beginning-Level Learners. (2013, background): “In the case of the adjectives, therefore, Jiang’s (2000) claim that learners need to experience the contextualized use of new L2 words in order to develop a full representation of them would seem to be borne out.”
• The Relationship between Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge and L2 Learners' Lexical Inferencing Strategy Use and Success (2004, background): “The different types of syntactic, semantic, and morphological information forming a lexical representation of a lexical entry in a learner s L1 are more strongly and highly integrated than those in the L2 (Jiang, 2000).”