The Boundaries of Lexical Innovation within a Question-Defined Semantic Cohort

• Authors: Camilo Andres Bonilla Carvajal
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study explores the amount of lexical innovation (hapax legomena or non repeated words) during a question-led (i.e. semi spontaneous) spoken word production task. Native adult non-impaired Spanish speakers (n = 8) were asked the same question 8 times with an interval of one day each; 4 participants answered the stimulus question in L1 and 4 did so in English. Participants were also given specific instructions to avoid conscious verbal monitoring, specially trying to evade or emphasise word repetition. Their responses were not time controlled. Quantitative word analysis reveals all subjects have recourse to an increased percentage of lexical recycling (vocabulary repetition), idiomatic and phraseology recurrence, as well as a limited percentage of lexical innovation or hapax. These findings are of interest to foreign language acquisition research, curricula design and idiolect re-encoding because they suggest that thematic-bound unities of thought elicited in word production are stable and comprise a major portion of all verbal content. These results may call into question the pertinence and efficacy of traditional syllabi focusing on linguistic points rather than on the role of recycling thematic-dependent learners’ verbal repertoire.

Keywords

EN

Hapax; idiolect; lexical recycling; lexical innovation; recursion; lexical access

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Open Linguistics
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 1
• Issue: 1

Dates

received

2014-06-30

accepted

2014-10-31

online

2014-12-30

Contributors

author

Camilo Andres Bonilla Carvajal

• Fundacion Universitaria Unipanamericana
  Bogota, D.C., Bogota, D.C. Colombia

References

• Alberini, Christina. M. (2005) Mechanisms of memory stabilization: Are consolidation and reconsolidation similar or distinct processes? Trends in Neurosciences. Vol. 28, N° 1, pp. 51-56.
• Baltes, Paul B., & John R. Nesselroade (1979). History and rational of longitudinal research. In Longitudinal Research in the Study of Behavior and Development, ed. J. R. Nesselroade & P. B. Baltes, pp. 1–39. Academic Press, New York.
• Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, 211-227.[Crossref]
• Bloem, Ineke., & La Heij, Wido. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468-488.[WoS]
• Bloem, Ineke, van den Boogaard, Sylvia, & La Heij, Wido. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 307-323.
• Bonilla Carvajal, Camilo A. (2013). Traducción e idiolecto: un campo de combate [Translation and idiolect: A combat field]. Experiencias educativas y prácticas pedagógicas en la Universidad Distrital: Memorias del primer encuentro, pp. 53-57. Bogotá: Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas.
• Bonilla Carvajal, Camilo A. (2014) Procrustes in the classroom: Imposing standards as a future trend in language teaching. Pixel (ed.) Conference Proceedings. The Future of Education 4th ed. The Future of Education. Limena [Italy]: libreriauniversitaria.it, pp. 457-460.
• Carter, Rita. (2009) The Human Brain Book. London: Dorling Kindersley.
• Chawla, Purnima, & Krauss, Robert M. (1994) Gesture and Speech in Spontaneous and Rehearsed Narratives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 30, N° 6, pp. 580–601.
• Costa, Albert; Mahon, Bradford; Savova, Virginia & Caramazza, Alfonso. (2003). Level of categorization effect: a novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 205-233.
• Dell, Gary. (1995) Speaking and misspeaking. An invitation to Cognitive Science: Language, Gleitman and Liberman (eds). Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 183-208.
• Duursma, Elisabeth, Romero-Contreras, Silvia, Szuber, Anna, Proctor, Patrick, Snow, Catherine, August, Diane, & Calderón, Margarita. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, pp. 171-90. DOI: 10.1017/S014271640 6070093.[Crossref]
• Frees, Edward W. 2006. Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gee, James Paul. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge.
• Geiger, Jennifer Ann. 2008. Neural encoding of contextual cues during fear extinction and reinstatement. [PhD.] The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. ProQuest ID: 1543529521.
• Gibbs, Raymond W., & Van Orden, Guy. (2012). Pragmatic choice in conversation. Topics in Cognitive Science. Vol. 4. N°. 1, pp. 7–20.
• Glaser, Wilhelm. R., & Düngelhoff, Franz-Josef. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640-654.
• Gumperz, John, & Hymes, Dell. (1988). Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Gut, Ulrike. (2009). Non-native speech: a corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Hulstijn, Jan H. (2001) Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258-86.
• Hüning, Matthias. (2001) TextSTAT - Simple Text Analysis Tool. Version 1.51. Available at: http://neon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de/static/textstat/TextSTAT-Doku-EN.html
• Johnson, Keith. (2008). Aprender y Enseñar Lenguas Extranjeras: Una Introducción [An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching]. México D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
• Kanarakis, George. 2009. Perspectives on Cross-Linguistic Transference: Greek and English in Multicultural Australia. Hellenic Studies/Etudes Helleniques. 17 (1), pp. 19-35.
• Krauss, Robert M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science. Vol. 7, pp. 54-59.
• Kuipers, Jan-Rouke, La Heij, Wido, & Costa, Albert. (2006). A further look at semantic context effects in language production: The role of response congruency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 892-919.
• Kuipers, J.-R., & La Heij, W. (2008). Semantic facilitation in category and action naming: Testing the message-congruency account. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 123-139.[WoS]
• Lewis, Michael. 2000. Learning in the lexical approach. En Teaching collocation: further developments in the lexical approach. Lewis, Michael.(ed.) pp. 155-84. Hove [U.K.]: Language Teaching Publications.
• Meisel, Jürgen M.; Clahsen, Harald; & Pienemann, Manfred. (1981) On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 3. N° 2, pp. 109-35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004137 [Crossref]
• Nairne, James S. (2002). Remembering over the short term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 53, pp. 53-81.[Crossref]
• Olynik, Marian, Sankoff, David; & D’Anglejan, Alison. (1983). Second language fluency and the subjective evaluation of office cadets in a military college. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, pp. 213-249.
• Rahman, Rasha Abdel, & Melinger Alissa. (2009) Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review, pp. 713-734. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24 (5).
• Rancière, Jacques. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Riggenbach, Heidi. (1991) Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse processes. Vol. 14, pp. 423-41.
• Skinner, Burrhus Frederic. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton [Mass]: Copley Custom Textbooks.
• Stemberger, Joseph. (1985) An interactive activation model of language production. Progress in the psychology of language. Andrew W. Ellis (ed.) Erlbaum: Hillsdale.
• Thierry, Guillaume, & Wu, Yan Jing. 2007. Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 104. N° 30, pp. 12530–5. DOI:10.1073/pnas. 0609927104.[Crossref][WoS]
• Yoshimura, Yuki, & MacWhinney, Brian. (2007) The effect of oral repetition on L2 speech fluency: an experimental tool and language tutor. SLaTE, October 1-3 pp. 25-28.
• Zamel, Vivian. (1987) Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 21, N° 4, pp. 697–715. DOI: 10.2307/3586990.[Crossref]
• Zhuang, Jie; Randall, Billi; Stamatakis, Emmanuel A.; Marslen-Wilson, William D., & Lorraine K. Tyler. (2011) The interaction of lexical semantics and cohort competition in spoken word recognition. An fMRI Study, Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (12) pp. 3778-3790.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/opli-2014-0008