In other words, the RHM describes 'L1-L2-concept' connections. Can we interpret that as both:
1. 'L1 representation of an individual word-L2 representation of an individual word-the underlying concept', and as
2. 'L1 lexicon as a whole-L2 lexicon as a whole-underlying concepts'
Is there anything in Kroll & Stewart's (1994) original study, or in subsequent research that does not support both of those interpretations?
Reference: Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(149-174).
John, I think you're right that the interpretation is left somewhat ambiguous. The model itself makes reference to the L1 and L2 lexicons (as well as their semantic dimension) as discrete systems, however the interplay of these elements is always explained in terms of individual L1/L2 word dynamics. Ultimately, the RHM is underspecified in this regard, being a "box and arrow" model. That said, there is the whole separate issue of little evidence to support separate L1 and L2 lexicons - in fact, many studies suggest that we should abandon this assumption altogether.
The issues about how anything is represented in the brain and how theories of language -- theoretical and/or computational -- should deal with them are extremely complex. The researchers who study bilingual subjects are the first to admit that no two bilinguals are identical in the way they learned, remember, and use their 2+ languages. The following slides are a compendium from several talks that I presented on these and related issues during the past two years: http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal.pdf .
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction