Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 2:1 (2012) ► pp.91–107

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Squib

Assessing multilingual lexical incorporation hypotheses through a primed picture-naming task

 | University of the Basque Country
Published online: 10 February 2012
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.1.04gon
The incorporation of new representations into the mental lexicon has raised numerous questions about the organisational principles that govern the process. A number of studies have argued that similarity between the new L3 items and existing representations in the L1 and L2 is the main incorporating force (Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 71–85). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Evidence from lexical processing in L1-L2-L3-L4 translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115–137). Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Series ‘Bilingual education and bilingualism’, InN.H. Hornberger & C. Baker (Eds.), vol 131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Experimental evidence obtained through a primed picture-naming task with L1 Polish-L2 English learners of L3 Russian supports Hall and Ecke’s Parasitic Model of L3 vocabulary acquisition, displaying a significant main effect for both priming and proficiency. These results complement current models of vocabulary acquisition and lexical access in multilingual speakers.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Research on L3 acquisition
    • 2.2Lexical organisation
    • 2.3Lexical incorporation and the Parasitic Model
    • 2.4Effects of cross-linguistic form similarity on lexical access
  • 3.Research questions and hypotheses
  • 4.The study
    • 4.1Materials
      • 4.1.1Questionnaire
      • 4.1.2Word pairs and pictures
    • 4.2Participants and procedure
      • 4.2.1Participants
      • 4.2.2Procedure
  • 5. Results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Early L3 acquisition: Parasitic links as mnemonic cues
    • 6.2Advanced stages: Emancipation and inhibition
  • Notes
  • References
References (23)
References
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 365–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2003). Lexical processing in bilinguals and multilinguals: The word selection problem. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 11–26). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 496–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 51–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dornic, S. (1980). Language dominance, spare capacity and perceived effort in bilinguals. Ergonomics, 23(4), 369–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition. The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics, IRAL, 451, 185–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 11, 3–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K.I., & Forster, J.C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 351, 116–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Universal Grammar and the acquisition of L3 syntax. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 25–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, C. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. International Review of Applied Linguistics, IRAL, 40(2), 69–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 71–85). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 213–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Evidence from lexical processing in L1-L2-L3-L4 translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115–137). Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Series ‘Bilingual education and bilingualism’, InN.H. Hornberger & C. Baker (Eds.), vol 131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.Archives of Psychology, 1401, 1–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahon, B.Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K.A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 331, 503–535.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–405.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1985). On the representation of two languages in one brain. Language Sciences, 7(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Preface: Time for new metaphors? In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. xi–xv). Buffalo: Multilingual matters. Series ‘Bilingual education and bilingualism’, edited by Hornberger & Baker.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, PH: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 26(2), 189–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J., Iverson, M., & Judy, T. (2011). Some notes on the generative study of L3 acquisition. Second Language Research, 27(1), 5–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Wang, Ting & Jingyun Yang
2025. The semantic access mechanism of L3 Spanish words. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Qun, Daoying Jiang, Marcus Taft & Xin Wang
2025. Language dominance, educational context, and the trilingual lexicon: a large-scale masked translation priming study. International Journal of Multilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Otwinowska, Agnieszka
2024. Cross-linguistic influence and language co-activation in acquiring L3 words: What empirical evidence do we have so far?. Second Language Research 40:3 ► pp. 765 ff. DOI logo
Ecke, Peter & Christopher J. Hall
2021. The Parasitic Model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 11:1 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Lago, Sol, Michela Mosca & Anna Stutter Garcia
2021. The Role of Crosslinguistic Influence in Multilingual Processing: Lexicon Versus Syntax. Language Learning 71:S1 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Jianlin
2020. How do L3 words find conceptual parasitic hosts in typologically distant L1 or L2? Evidence from a cross-linguistic priming effect. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23:10 ► pp. 1238 ff. DOI logo
于, 美连
2020. A Review on the Mechanism of Semantic Access in Trilinguals. Modern Linguistics 08:02 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Rothman, Jason, Jorge González Alonso & Eloi Puig-Mayenco
2019. Third Language Acquisition and Linguistic Transfer, DOI logo
Slabakova, Roumyana
2017. The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism 21:6 ► pp. 651 ff. DOI logo
ECKE, PETER
2015. Parasitic vocabulary acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, and lexical retrieval in multilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Hall, C. J.
2013. Cognitive Contributions to Plurilithic Views of English and Other Languages. Applied Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue