Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Camilo Andres Bonilla Carvajal
Published Online: 2014-12-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0008

Abstract

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

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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, 211-227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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. Google Scholar

  • Carter, Rita. (2009) The Human Brain Book. London: Dorling Kindersley.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Dell, Gary. (1995) Speaking and misspeaking. An invitation to Cognitive Science: Language, Gleitman and Liberman (eds). Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 183-208.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frees, Edward W. 2006. Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gee, James Paul. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Geiger, Jennifer Ann. 2008. Neural encoding of contextual cues during fear extinction and reinstatement. [PhD.] The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. ProQuest ID: 1543529521.Google Scholar

  • Gibbs, Raymond W., & Van Orden, Guy. (2012). Pragmatic choice in conversation. Topics in Cognitive Science. Vol. 4. N°. 1, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Gumperz, John, & Hymes, Dell. (1988). Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar

  • Gut, Ulrike. (2009). Non-native speech: a corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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 Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Kanarakis, George. 2009. Perspectives on Cross-Linguistic Transference: Greek and English in Multicultural Australia. Hellenic Studies/Etudes Helleniques. 17 (1), pp. 19-35.Google Scholar

  • Krauss, Robert M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science. Vol. 7, pp. 54-59.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nairne, James S. (2002). Remembering over the short term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 53, pp. 53-81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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).Google Scholar

  • Rancière, Jacques. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Riggenbach, Heidi. (1991) Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse processes. Vol. 14, pp. 423-41.Google Scholar

  • Skinner, Burrhus Frederic. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton [Mass]: Copley Custom Textbooks. Google Scholar

  • Stemberger, Joseph. (1985) An interactive activation model of language production. Progress in the psychology of language. Andrew W. Ellis (ed.) Erlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Zamel, Vivian. (1987) Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 21, N° 4, pp. 697–715. DOI: 10.2307/3586990.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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. Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-06-30

Accepted: 2014-10-31

Published Online: 2014-12-30


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0008.

Export Citation

© 2015 Camilo Andres Bonilla Carvajal. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in