Title Lexical Performance in L1: What is Native-like LexicalCompetence?

Author(s) Goya, Hideki

Citation 言語文化研究紀要 ： Scripsimus(23): 1-26

Issue Date 2014-10-31

URL http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12000/31134

Rights

言語文化研究紀要SCRIPSﾉM7SN0.23,2014

LexicalPerfbnnanceinLl:WhatisNative-likeLexicalCompetence？

HidekiGoya

Introduction

Vocabularyknowledgeisindispensibleinanylanguageto

communicatemeaningfullyandappropriately.However,various

difficultiesareinvolvedinachievingfull-developmentoflexical

competenceevenamongnativespeakers(e.g.,Stahl&Nagy,2006).

Previousstudiesinvestigatedwhatfactorsinfluencedprocessingand

learningvocabularyinthemothertongue.Thesestudiesfoundthatone

factoristhesimilarityofmeaningamongwords(Erten&Tekin,2008;

Finkbeiner&Nicol,2003;Nation,2001;Webb,2009).Morespecifically,

somefoundthatdictionarymeaningwasfoundtobeacauseofambiguity

influencingaccuratesynonym-usages(Azuma&VanOrden,1997;Millis

&Butto,1989)whileothersclaimedthatmoreinternalfactorsatamicro

levelsuchassemanticrepresentationmighthaveinfluencednative

speaker'ssuccessfulprocessing,whichaffectedsubsequentlearning

(Erten&Tekin,2008;Finkbeiner&Nicol,2003)．Infact,inthe

word-senseresearchframework,themeaningsimilaritydeterminedby

thenumberofword-senses,asegmentofword-meaning,wasfoundtobe

influentialtoprocessingofnear-synonymsaswellassubsequentlearning

eveninthenativelanguage(Finkbeiner,2002;Finkbeiner&Nicol,2003;

Finkbenier,Forster,Nicol,&Nakamura,2004).

Thepresentstudylookedforanygeneralizablepatternsofnative

speakers'lexicalperformanceinrelationtotheword-senseeffectwhich

hasbeenscarcelydiscussedinthepsycho-semanticfield.Ifnative

－1－

speakers'lexicalcompetencecanbemeasuredbyobservingtheirlexical

performance,thiscanbeutilizedasabenchmarkforL2learners'lexical

developmentinthetargetlanguage,whichalsodevelopsmethodological

validityinmeasuringanddrawingadecisiveconclusion.Thiswillinturn

helpL2learnersandinstructorspredictpotentialdifficultiesinacquiring

newL2vocabulary.

TheoreticalBackground

Wordsinmind

Manyresearcheffortsweremadetoillustrateageneralpictureof

howwordsinanativelanguagewouldbesystematicallyorganizedina

speaker'smind.Oneoftheearlymodelsofwordorganizationinthefield

wascalledthehierarchicalnetworkmodel(Collins&Quillan,1969).The

modelpredictedthatwordswouldbeconceptuallyorganizedaccordingto

theirinterrelationshipofidiosyncraticfeatures.Morespecifically,itwas

hvoothesizedthatallwordsweresomehowrankedandinterconnected

basedonconceptualfeaturesinahierarchicalstructure(Figure1).

異|:難!。t*Swims

upstream

tolayeggs

CANARY

dangerous

F道ure1・HierarchicalNetworkModel(Collins&Quillan,1969)

ワム

Furthermore，themodelpostulatedthatthedistanceofnodelevels

(i.e.,CANARY,BIRD,orANIMALinFigure1)betweenwordswould

determinethespeedofresponsestowardsgivenstatementsinthe

experiment・Thatis,itwouldtakelongerforparticipantstoactivatethe

relationshipifcategoriesinthestatementwerefurtherapartthanifthey

wereclosertogetherinthemodel.Despiteplausibleaccountsofthe

latencyeffectamongvariousstatements,however,thismodelfailedto

adequatelyaccountforatypicalityissue(Anderson,2005).

Fromacognitivelinguisticviewpoint,linguisticknowledgecanbe

formedbycognitiveinteractionandexperiences(Bechtel&Graham,

1998).InBechtelandGraham'sview,thebasicstructureofword

knowledgeorganizationappeareddifferentlythanitdidintheprevious

model.Specifically,theprincipleunderlyingtheirnewperspectivewas

thatwordswereorganizedinaradicalorderbydegreeofmutual

closeness(Labov,1973)．Theradicalmannerwellexpressesthatthe

closertothecenterawordislocated,themorelikelyitistorepresentthe

category(Bowerman,1978)orprototypicality(Aitchison,2003).

Aitchisonarguedfortheimportanceoftheprototypicalityofthe

categories,whichplausiblyaccountedforthedistanceofeachwordso

thatsomedifferencesinthecategorywouldneedmorelatentresponse

thanothers(Figure2).

－ 3 －

Figi"･e2.PrototypicalityModel(adaptedfromAitchison,2003)

Inamorerecentapproach,furtherdevelopmentsinunderstanding

wordorganizationhasprovidedanovelview.CollinsandLoftus(1975)

attemptedtobringtogetherthesemanticinterrelationshipdescribed

aboveinamoreintegralmodel:thespreadingactivationmodel.This

modelincludednodeswhichwereinterconnectedwithwordsasseenin

thehierarchicalnetworkmodel・Whatwasdistinctivelydifferentfromthe

earliermodelswerethatthewordswerenolongerrankedina

hierarchicalorder.Rather,thewordswereinterconnectedbyaweb－like

networkwithlineswhoselengthhypotheticallyrepresentsthefamiliarity

andsimilarityofthewords.

Theirmodelwelldepictedrichconnectionsamongwordsin

speakers'minds･Figure3illustratestheword"fireengine"toshowhowit

wouldco-activatesurroundingwords.Forinstance,basedonthe"fire

－4－

engine"diagram,whentheword"fireengine"isprocessed,it

simultaneouslyactivates"house,""red,"and"truck"becausetheyare

directlyandcloselyconnected.Inotherwords,languageuserswill

immediatelythinkof"house,""red,"and"truck"whentheyseeorhear

theword"fireengine."Subsequently,theinitialactivationleadsto

spreadingactivationsofotherwordssuchas"street,""yellow,"or“

rosescontinuously.rosescontlnuously．

F漕L"で3.SpreadActivationModel(Collins&Loftus,1975)

Asseeninthediagram,thelexicalcategoriesarelinkednotbysemantic

relationshipsbutbythestrengthsanddistancesofthenodes.

Furthermore,sincethestrengthisrepresentedbythelengthofthe

connectionsbetweenwords,categoricalandprototypicalrelationships

arelogicallywellaccounted.

Psycholinguisticstudieshavewellsupportedthemodel'svalidityto

accountforthelearnersorganizationofwords.MeyerandSchvanveldt

(1971)askedparticipantsinastudytodecidewhethertargetwordswere

realwords(i.e.,lexicaljudgmenttest)．Inthetask,thetargetword

－5－

appearedimmediatelyaftertheprimeworddisappeared.Iftherewere

contrastingdifferencesintheprocessingspeedbetweenthesemantically

relatedandnon-relatedpairs,itcouldbeconcludedthatthewordsmight

belinkedclosertogether.Indeed,theobtainedresultsindicatedthat

semanticallyrelatedpairssuchas"br・ead-butter"wereprocessed

quickerthannon-relatedpairssuchas"doctor-butter"(Meyer&

Schvanveldt,1971).MeyerandSchvanveldtattributedthelatencyeffect

tothefactthatsemantically-relatedwordswereorganizedcloselyand

strongly.

Morerecentmodel

Foramorespecificviewonthesegmentofword-meaning,

especiallyintermsofsimultaneousandspontaneousco-activation,

Finkbeiner(2002)proposedthesensemodel.Hehypothesizedthateach

wordincludesacertainnumberoflanguagespecificsegmentsofmeaning

or"word-sense"(shownasgrayishandwhitedotsinFigure4)and

sharedsenses(representedbyblackdotsinFigure4)．Specifically,the

modelpredictedthesamepatternofprimingeffects,supportingtheidea

ofCO-activation(i､e.,whenweseeandhearaword,itwouldactivate

semanticallyrelatedwords).Additionally,thismodelpostulatedthata

translationasymmetrywasattributednottoaweakconnection(asseenin

therevisedhierarchicalmodel;Kroll&Steward,1994),butto

representationalasymmetrydeterminedbythenumberofword-sense.

Forinstance,theequivalentwordsblack(English)andkuroi(Japanese)

differinthenumberoflanguage-specificsenses.Theweakerlanguages

havefewersenses(i.e.,EnglishinthecaseofESLlearners).Theless

balancedtwolanguagesare,thelargerthedifferencebecomesbetween

thetwolanguagesintermsofnumberofsenses.Figure4illustratesthe

model.

戸○

LexicalFo面n

Representation

Lexicalscmannc

Representation

F遁["で聖.Finkbeiner'sSenseModel(AdaptedfromFinkbeiner,etal..

2004）

Inthesamevein,Rodd,Gaskell,andMarslen-Wilson(2002)

investigatedthesemanticpropertywithacontroversialclaimoflexical

ambiguityadvantage.Theyclaimedthatifwordsinapairwere

semanticallyambiguous,theywouldprocessthewordslower.Roddetal.

controlleddegreesofsemanticambiguityonabasisofthenumberof

word-senses"(i.e.,smallersegmentsofwordmeaning).Inaddition,they64

hypothesizedthatthewordmeaningadvantagewasactuallyasense

advantage(Roddetal.,2002).

Intheirseriesoflexicaljudgmenttestswithnativespeakersof

English,theparticipantswereaskedtojudgewhetherpresented

ambiguousandunambiguouswordswerealexicalitemornot(Roddetal.,

2002).Thelexicalvariables,includingconcreteness,familiarity,and

relatednessratings,werecontrolled.Theresultsshowedthatmultiple

word-sensesproducedaprocessingbenefit,whilemultiple

word-meaningsdelayedrecognition,andwordswithmanyword-senses

wererespondedtofasterwithfewererrors.Theyalsofoundthatlexical

decisiontimes(reactiontimeorRT)wereactuallyslowerforambiguous

wordssuchasbankthanforunambiguouswords,whereasdecisiontimes

forwordswithmanywordsensesweresignificantlyfasterthanforwords

withfewwordsenses(Roddetal.,2002).Basedonthefindings,they

ワー

suggestedthatitwasnotword－meaningbutword－sensethatwould

facilitatewordrecognition,andword－sensewasasemanticproperty

whichcouldbeascribedtosemanticambiguityinterferingwithlearning

semanticallyrelatedwords(Roddetal.,2002).

Byexploringthesemanticpropertywithadifferentresearch

paradigm,Finkbeiner,Forster,Nicol,andNakamura(2004)investigated

word-senseinvolvementassemanticrepresentations.Theytestedboth

bilingualspeakersandnativespeakers(i.e.,Japanese-Englishbilinguals

andnativespeakersofEnglish).Theirmainfocuswastoshedlighton

primingasymmetrybetweenLIandL2・Theyespeciallyexaminedvia

taskdifferencesofhowtheycouldaccountforsuchasymmetricrelations

betweenLIandL2primingbyemployingword-sensesthroughdifferent

measurements.Asaresult,theyfoundtherobustmaskedL2－LI

translationpriminginsemanticcategorizationbutnotinlexicaldecisions,

TheyassumedthattherelationshipbetweenLIandL2lexicalsemantic

representationswasasymmetrical;LIwasrichbutL2wasnot.Theyalso

foundthatinlexicaldecisions,therobustprimingeffectwasobtainedin

themany－fewdirection,butnoprimingwasobtainedinthefew-many

directionusingthesamepairs.Theeffectinsemanticcategorization,on

theotherhand,wasobtainedinbothdirections.Theyconcludedthat

wordswithmanyword-sensesprimedotherswithfewword-sensesin

lexicaldecisionsandsemanticcategorization,butthesameword-pairsin

thefew-manydirectionproducedtheprimingeffectonlyinsemantic

categorization,notlexicaldecisions.

Whatisimportantisthatinaseriesofpsycholinguisticexperiments.

Finkbeineretal.(2004)verifiedtheasymmetricaleffectintranslation

tasks.Inshort,theresultconfirmedtheeffectobservedacrosslanguages

ifthestimulisharedword-senses.Moreimportantly,theyfoundtheeffect

withinalanguageamongnativespeakers・Thatis,inapairofsemantically

－8－

similarwordssharingsomesenses,thewordwithmoresenseswould

primetheotherwithfewersenses.

Tosum,thefindingsfromRoddetal.(2002)andFinkbeineretal.

(2004)collectivelysuggestedthatword-sensewasthesemanticproperty

thatwouldaffectsemanticprocessing.Specifically,wordswithmany

word-senseswouldfacilitaterecognitionofwordswithfewword-senses

withinalanguageaswellasacrosslanguages(Finkbeineretal,2004).

Amythinnative-speaker'slexicalcompetence

Asseenabove,manystudiesexaminedinwhatwaywordknowledge,

especiallywordmeaning,isorganizedinlearners'mindstobuildabasic

understandingofwhatconsistsofaccurate,appropriate,andnative－like

useofthetargetwords.Someresearchers,however,weredoubtfultothe

word-senseeffect・Forinstance,Gernsbacher(1984)arguedthatwords

withmorethanonemeaningweretypicallymorefamiliar;therefore,it

wasnaturalthatarobusteffectonlexicaljudgmentshouldbefound.

Althoughshefoundsupportingevidencetothiseffect,suchrobustness

wasfoundonlyinlexicaljudgmenttests(Borowsky&Masson,1996),

whichdroveotherresearcherstoinvestigatesuchtaskdependencyin

termsoftheeffect'srobustnessonword-sense(Finkbeineretal.,2004;

Roddetal.,2002).Inotherwords,theword-senseeffectfoundinthe

lexicaljudgmenttesthasbeenscarcelydiscussedinotherresearch

methodologies,whichwouldfailtogeneralizetheeffectinthe

psycholinguisticresearchparadigm.Suchtaskdependencyneedsmore

empiricalattentionforathroughdescriptionoftheword-senseeffect.

Furthermore,manystudiesinsecondlanguage(L2)vocabularywere

carriedoutbasedonapromisethatnativespeakersmusthave

full-fledgedlexicalcompetence.Thus,anyresultsgainedfromL2

participantsinexperimentsweredirectlycomparedtothatfromnative

－9－

speakersofthetargetlanguagebasedonthepremise.Whatisinteresting

isthatsuchcompetencehasbeentakenforgrantedasabenchmarkto

decidehowfarL2learnersofthetargetlanguagewerecomparedto

nativespeakers.Asaresult,someL2learnersatanadvancedlevelmight

beviewedasnotnative-likeduetoincongruentresultscomparedwith

misleadingresultsofnative-speakers'lexicalperformanceaswellaslack

ofmeasuringtheword-senseeffectintheexperiments.Inthissense,

whatitmeanstobenative-likeinlexicalcompetenceremainsunclearin

theframeworkofthesemanticjudgmenttest,whichdeservesmore

theoreticalattentionsinthefieldofpsycholinguistics.

Method

Researchquestions

Themajorgoalofthepresentstudywastodeterminelevelsof

native-likelexicalcompetence.Specifically,thestudyhypothesizedthat,

giventhattheexperimentthatinvolvedword-senseshowedthepriming

effectamongnativespeakers,theword-senseeffectcanbeobservablein

theframeworkofsemanticjudgmenttestaswell.Thisinturnhelpsus

determinewhatisnative-likeintermsofword-senseacquisition,which

willprovidemorevalidmethodologicalcluesforclarifyingtherelationship

betweenLItranslationandL2word－senseassemanticrepresentationin

L2lexicalcompetence・Inordertoexploretheaboveaspect,thefollowing

researchquestionswereaddressedintheframeworkofthesemantic

judgmenttest:

RQ1:Isnativespeakers'responsetowardssemanticallyrelated

wordsmoreaccurateandfasterthanunrelatedwords？

RQ2:Isnativespeakers'responsetowardssemanticallymore

similarwordslessaccuratethanlesssimilarwords？

－ 1 0 －

RQ3:Isnativespeakers'responsetowardssemanticallymore

similarwordsslowerthanlesssimilarwords？

Researchdesign

Thestudyhadtwoindependentvariables:word-senseand

relatedness.Word-senseisusedtodeterminethedegreeofmeaning

similarity.Therelatednessdividedstimuliineithersemanticallyrelated

word-pairsorunrelatedword-pairs.Thedependentvariablesweremean

accuracyandreactiontime(RT)ofthesemanticjudgmenttest.

Participants

AllparticipantswerenativespeakersofEnglish:fivemalesand15

females.Theiragerangedfrom18to21yearsold.Theyallvoluntarily

participatedintheexperimentin=20).Allofthemwerecollegestudents

whohadnotreceivedanyformalJapaneselanguagelessons.Anybilingual

speakerswereexcludedfromthegroupbythebackgroundquestionnaire.

Theircollegemajorswidelyvaried,butnoneofthemwasmajoring

English,Japanese,orlinguisticsexceptfortwoparticipants(secondary

EnglisheducationorEnglishstudies).

Taskandmaterials

Sema""で"吃'meattest.Thecomputer-basedtest,adaptedfrom

Jiang(2002,2004a),whereparticipantswereaskedtojudgewhetherthe

presentedEnglishwordpairswererelatedinmeaning.Thetestfeatured

79pairedEnglishwordsconsistingofsynonymouspairs（〃＝39）and

non-semanticallyrelatedpairsin=40).Theorderoftheitem

presentationwasrandomizedforeachparticipant･Participantshadto

press"Y"onthekeyboardifapairseemedtoberelatedinmeaning;

otherwise,theyhadtopress"N"asunrelated.

－11－

TheListofS"功uli.Thestimuliusedinthisonlineexperimentwere

adaptedfromGoya(2014)．Amongthesemanticallyrelatedpairs,two

sub-typeswerecreatedbycontrollingdegreesofmeaningsimilarity

betweenpairedstimuli:MoreSimilar(synonymssharingmultiple

word-senses)andLessSimilar(synonymssharingasingleword-sense).

AccordingtotheOne－wayANOVA,resultsshowedthatthemultiple

word-sensessharedpairshadsignificantlymoresensesthananyofthe

singleword-sensesharedpairs.Otherlexicalvariables(word-length.

semanticrelatedness,andwordfrequency)werealsocontrolled.

Accordingtoseveral̂ -tests,noneofthefactorsweresignificant.Inthis

sense,"[c]onsideringtheminimizedeffectsofothervariables(i.e.,

familiarity,relatedness,word-length,andword-frequency),anyresults

canbeattributedtothetestedvariable"(Goya,2014).Adescriptionof

stimuliispresentedinTable1.

Table1.

Desaぐわ"b〃ofstimuli

Examplesof"Numberof''Semantic

relatedpairssensesrelatedness

Moresimilarpairs(allow-permit)2.63

Lesssimilarpairs(admit-accept)1

5.14

5．21

F̂requency

ofpairs

''Lengthofwords

86.795．39

84．055．61

ﾊﾉote."Thenumberofword-sensesofeachwordwasdrawnfromthe

corpusWordNet(Fellbaum,1998).̂Semanticrelatednesswasmeasured

bytheadegreeofclosenessofthemeaningbetweenpairedwordsrated

byfivemonolingualspeakersofEnglish・"Wordfrequencywasmeasured

byaverageofpairedwordsdrawnfromBrowncorpus(Kucera&Fransis,

1967).''Wordlengthwasmeasuredbythemeannumberoflettersofthe

pairedwords.

－1 2 －

ApparatusandProcedures

Twotaskswereadministeredinthefollowingsequence.First,after

participantsfilledoutthebackgroundinformationquestionnaire,the

semanticjudgmenttestwasadministered・Theresearchermetallofthe

qualifiedparticipantsin=20)inthelaboratoryindividually.The

experimentwascarriedoutonaMaccomputer.Theparticipantswere

directedtorespondasquicklyaspossiblebypressinganykey.Aftera

cue,thestimulusword-pairremainedonthescreenfor500msoruntilany

buttonwaspressed.TheRTswererecordedfromtheonsetofthe

presentation.Thepresentationorderofthestimuliwasrandomizedfor

eachparticipantbySuperLab,apsycholinguisticexperimentation

software.

Result

Asmentionedearlier,thetotalnumberoftheparticipantswas20;

however,onewasexcludedfromfurtheranalysisduetosignificantlyslow

responses.Figure5and6presentthemeansandstandarddeviations

(SDs)ofaccuracyaswellasreactiontimes(RTs)accordingtothe

stimulustypes,suchasoverallitemsin=79),relatedpairsin=39),and

unrelatedpairsin=40)．Accuraciesarepresentedinpercentage(%)

whileRTsarepresentedinmilliseconds(ms).

AccordingtoFigure5,themeanaccuracieswere89.67%iSD=7.79),

92.17%iSD=5.37),and85.79%iSD=15.70)fortheoverallitems,the

relateditems,andtheunrelateditems,specifically・Theratiobetweenthe

numberofthesemanticallyrelatedpairsandthatoftheunrelatedpairs

was39:40;therefore,thefinalizedchancelevelofbothgroupsaccuracy

was49.37%.Alloftheparticipants'judgmentwasabovethechancelevel,

whichindicatesthatthematerialsuccessfullyeliminatedanyguesswork

－1 3 －

onthesemanticjudgment.

94

92.17％

92旨③員団つ具昌旨関輯場単◎計。国。。。く

い密鎮駕《ふ．…｡.1．.：

霜ー90

88

85.79％86

84

82

Related Unrelated

Word-PairTypes

局ど["e5.Accuracyofjudgmentonrelatedandunrelatedword-pairs

AsforRTs,accordingtoFigure6,theirmeanswere1582.08msiSD

=329.39),1398.13msiSD=286.57),and1616.67msiSD=377.18)forthe

overallitems,therelateditems,andtheunrelateditems,specifically.

００００００

ｍ釦鋤和知加

１１１１１ｌ

］員のロ胃凶ロ。『○審目園【画の吻雫○門“

1616.67ms

．合一,堅臨鵠薄…VL_‐‐__‐‐_‐______、

1398.13,s瀞蕊織議蕊蕊蕊＃

再禽！

8－…錐

UnrelatedRelated

Word-PairTypes

FIgui汐6.Reactiontime(RT)ofjudgmentonrelatedandunrelated

word-pairs

－14－

Toexaminewhetherthereisanysignificantdifferenceinthese

means,thedifferencesbetweenthemeansoftherelatedpairsandthatof

theunrelatedpairsweretestedusingtwo-tailedpairedt-tests.Asfor

accuracy,thedifferencewasnotsignificant(p=、12).Theresultsindicate

thatthegroupssemanticjudgmentwereequallyaccurateonbothrelated

andunrelatedword-pairs.AsforRTs,however,thedifferencewas

significant:̂ (18)=-4.59,p<.01,andd=.65.Theresultsindicatethat

thegroupssemanticjudgmentwassignificantlyfasterontherelated

word-pairsthantheunrelatedcounterparts.Table2indicatestheresult.

Table2.

ノセsuitsofthet-1~どSt0〃ノl絶ansofReactio〃刀切esbetweenRelateda"ぴ

Unrelateぴ姥"ぢ

A化α〃 SD r p

Related1398.13ms286.57-4.59.000

Unrelated1616.67ins377.18

‘ノ

､65

Acomparisonbetweensemanticallymoreandlesssimilar

word－pairswhosesimilaritywasdeterminedbythenumberof

word-sensesharedwithinapairwasalsoconducted.Themeanaccuracy

ofmoresimilarword-pairs(More)was92.37%iSD=6.74)whilethatof

lesssimilarword-pairs(Less)was91.97%iSD=7.31).AsforRTs,the

meanspeedofjudgmentonthemoresimilarword-pairswas1377.84ms

iSD=284.12)whilethatonthelesssimilarcounterpartswas1419.49ms

(､SD=314.98).Figure7and8indicatethosenumbers.Accuraciesare

presentedinpercentage(%)whileRTsarepresentedinmilliseconds

(ms).

－ 1 5 －

94‐’。‐●Ｐ●１

92.37％

騨鍵蕊91.97%

２０８６４２

９９８８８８

］巨の鼻唇叩つ。一

畳目Ｅのど。否曽雪８く

鍔：．＃需．…・‐

鱗,＄騨・,輔

蕊

LessMore

Word-PairTypes

Figure7.Accuracyofjudgmentonmoreandlesssimilarword-pairs

1700

００００

００００

６５４３

１１１１

料宮⑫戸動己三『昌一唇貿唇の画雫○烏函

1419.49ms

11377雲34,s ‘j瞬・k､識冒･識懲識鼠__…-.‐

1200

LessMore

Word-PairTypes

Figure8.Reactiontimes(RTs)ofjudgmentonmoreandlesssimilar

word－pairs

Toexaminewhetherthereisanysignificantdifferenceinthese

means,thedifferencesofmeansbetweentherelatedpairsandthe

unrelatedpairswastestedusingtwo-tailedpairedt-tests.Theresults

indicatedthatbothdifferenceswerefoundtobenon-significant;t(18)

＝、19andp=.85formeanaccuracyand(18)=一・96andp=.35formean

－ 1 6 －

RTs・Inshort,nativespeakers'judgmentwasasaccurateandfastonboth

typesofstimuli,semanticallymoresimilaraswellaslesssimilar

word－pairsintheexperiment.

Discussion

Alloftheresearchquestionsaddressedinthepresentstudywereto

investigatenativespeakers'lexicalperformanceintermsofsubtle

meaningdifferences.Thefirstresearchquestionaskedwhethernative

speakers'responsestowardssemanticallyrelatedword-pairscouldbe

moreaccurateandfasterthantheirresponsestounrelatedcounterparts

inthesemanticjudgmenttest.Inthetest,theparticipantshadtodecide

whetherpresentedword-pairswererelatedinmeaning.Interestingly,the

studyfoundamixedresult.Specifically,thedifferenceinaccuraciesof

theparticipants"performancebetweenthesemanticallyrelatedand

unrelatedword-pairswasstatisticallynon-significant;however,howfast

theparticipantsrespondedtothestimulihadasignificantdifferenceip

=.00andd=.65).Thatis,theparticipantsrespondedmorequicklytothe

semanticallyrelatedword-pairsthantounrelatedword-pairsinthe

experiment.

Intuitivelyandlogically,itseemsnotsurprisingtoobservesuch

non-significantdifferenceinaccuracies.Theparticipantsinvolvedinthe

currentexperimentwereallcollegestudentsintheU.S.whomusthavea

widerangeofvocabularyknowledgeinordertoenrollinthefour-year

program.Inthissense,theirfullydevelopedlexicalknowledgeallowed

veryaccuratelexicalperformanceregardlessofthesemanticrelatedness

amongthestimulusword-pairs.Then,whydidittakerelativelylongerto

executetheirreactiontothesemanticallyunrelatedword-pairs？The

stimuliusedintheexperimentwereeithersemanticallyrelatedor

－ 1 7 －

unrelated.Inorderfortheparticipantstodecidewhetherthepresented

word－pairswererelatedinmeaning,theparticipantshadtosearchforthe

sourceoftheirdecisionwhileprocessingthesetwowordsinmind.With

thisinmind,itcanbehypothesizedthattheparticipantswerequickeron

thesemanticallyrelatedword-pairsbecausethepairactuallyshared

commonsemanticinformationwhiletheyweresloweronthesemantically

unrelatedword-pairsbecausethepairdidnothaveanycommonality;the

participantshadtokeeponsearchingforacommonfeatureofmeaning

untiltheyterminatedtheirsearch・Therefore,itseemsnaturaltoobserve

suchmixedresults.

Theabovecontentioncancomplementarilyputforwardtheprevious

theoreticalmodelsofwordorganization.Giventhatthecontrolled

variablewasmeaningrelatednessandtheeffectwasfoundintermsof

reactiontime,thiscansuggestthatwordsinourmindmaybelinkedona

basisofthesemanticrepresentationassuggestedinthefield(Aitchison,

2003;Collins&Loftus,1975;Collins&Quillan,1969;Finkbeiner,2002;

Labov,1971;Meyer&Schvanveldt,1971).Inparticular,thePrototype

theory(Aitchison,2003;Labov,1971)postulatesthatwordsinthesame

semanticcategoryhypotheticallyareorganizedinaradicalmannerin

whichmorecentralwordscanbeplacedinthemiddleofwordswhileless

centralwordsmaybeplacedmoreperipherallydistance.Inthissense,the

semanticallyunrelatedwordsarehardlyco-activatedintheparticipants'

mindswhilesemanticallyrelatedwordsbecomehighlyco－activateddue

tocloserdistancesbetweenwords.Similarly,theSpreadActivationModel

(Collins&Loftus,1975;Meyer&Schvanveldt,1971)postulatesthat

wordsinourmindmayco－existinaweb－likenetwork.Furthermore,

distancesbetweenwordsrepresenthowfartheyareapartfromeach

otherinthenetwork.

Thesemodelscollectivelyandadequatelyaccountfortheslower

－1 8 －

reactiontimetothesemanticallyunrelatedwordsfoundinthepresent

investigation.Thatis,theparticipantsrespondedmorequicklytothe

semanticallyrelatedword-pairsbecausethewordswereco－activated

duetolessdistancebetweenthestimuliinourmindwhiletheyresponded

moreslowlytotheunrelatedword-pairsduetogreaterdistancebetween

thestimuliinthenetworkornolinkinthenetworkatall.Thus,the

participantsneededmoretimetosearchforthelink.Yet,onemayraise

thesequestions:whatconnectsthesewordsmthesamecategoryand

whatdeterminesthesemanticclosenessofwordsinthenetwork.

Thesecondandthirdresearchquestionsaddressedtheseissuesby

lookingintowhethernativespeakers'responsestowardsthesemantically

moresimilarword-pairscouldbelessaccurateandslowerthantheir

responsestowardsthesemanticallylesssimilarword-pairsduetomore

word-sensesinvolvedinlexicalprocessing.Lookingcloserathownative

speakersperformintheexperimentwouldpromoterelevantevidenceof

whatconnectswordsinourmindandwhatdeterminesthesemantic

closenessofwordsinthenetwork.Word-senseisatheoreticalconceptof

semanticrepresentationthatcanbecountedbyreferringtoanonline

corpus,WordNet(Fellbaum,1998).Giventhatword-senseispartofthe

semanticpropertyusedforlexicalprocessingamongnativespeakers

(Finkbeiner,2002;Roddetal.,2002),suchpolysemousaspectof

vocabularymightinterferewiththeparticipants'semanticjudgment

becausetheparticipantshavetoretrieveandprocessmanysemantic

representationsforthelexicalcomparisonofthepresentedword-pairs.

Surprisingly,however,thestudyfoundthattheparticipants

respondedtothesemanticallymoresimilarword-pairsasaccuratelyas

tothelesssimilarword-pairsaccordingtonon-significantdifferenceof

accuracyip=.85).AsforRT,althoughtheparticipantsresponded

relativelymorequicklytothesemanticallymoresimilarword-pairs(Af=

－ 1 9 －

1377.84ms,SD=284.12)thantothesemanticallylesssimilarword-pairs

(M=1419.49ms,SD=314.98)accordingtothedescriptivestatistics,the

differencewasnotsignificantip=、35).Infact,thisisinlinewithGoya

(2014)indicatingthateventhoughtheEnglishnear-synonymswere

semanticallyverysimilaronthebasisofnativespeakers'ratingsthrough

apilottest,theparticipantswerecapableofdistinguishingthesubtle

differencesofmeaningdeterminedbythenumberofword-sense.

Likewise,otherstudiesinvestigatingL2vocabularyknowledge

amongESLlearners(Jiang,2002,2004a)discussednative-speakers'

full一fledgedlexicalknowledge.InJiang'sseriesofthesemanticjudgment

tests,thedatagainedfromthenativespeakersofEnglishwasusedto

determinehowwelltheESLlearnershadachievednative-likelexical

competence.Itfoundthattherewasnosignificantdifferenceinthelexical

performanceintermsofaccuracyandRT,whichindicatedthatnoneof

thelearnershadachievednative-likestatusduetoincongruentlexical

performancesbetweenL2learnersandnativespeakers(e.g.,Jiang,2002;

2004a).However,tothisdate,noneofthepreviousresearchhadfocused

oninwhatmannernativespeakerswouldspontaneouslyrespondtothe

semanticallyrelatedword-pairsdividedonabasisofthenumberof

word－sensesinanonlineexperiment.

Consideringnoeffectfoundinnativespeakers'accuracyandRTin

thesemanticjudgmenttest,thepresentfindingscontributed

methodologicaladvancementtothefieldofL2vocabularyacquisition.

Specifically,thepresentinvestigationprovidedabenchmarkof

native-likelexicalcompetencewhichwasdeterminedbynativespeakers'

lexicalperformanceinthesemanticjudgmenttest.Suchnovelviewof

native－likecompetencecansuggestwhatitmeanstohavefully

developedlexicalcompetenceinthenativelanguage.Thatis,thenative

speakersareconsiderablyaccurateandspontaneousindistinguishing

－2 0 －

near-synonymsregardlessofmeaningsimilarity.

Combinedwiththefindingsfromthefirstresearchquestion,the

descriptivestatisticsofaccuracyandspeedoftheirperformanceinthe

semanticjudgmenttestmayalsosuggestthatthesemanticallyrelated

wordscanbelinkedtogetherbyword-sensesiftheyshareany;therefore.

theparticipantscanactivatethestimuliquicker,whichcansupportthe

sensemodelproposedbyFinkbeinerandhiscolleague(2004).Thiscanin

turnsuggestthatword-senseisasemanticpropertynativespeakersuse

forlexicalprocessing.Despitethestatisticallynon-significanceofthe

word-senseeffectfoundinthepresentinvestigation,theparticipants

respondedrelativelymorequicklytothesemanticallymoresimilar

word-pairsthantolesssimilarwords.Becausethenumberword-sense

wascontrolledamongthestimuli,thesemanticallyrelatedword-pairs

shareatleastasingleword-sense,andsuchcommonalitymighthelpthe

participantsdrawquickerconclusions.Inotherwords,thiscommon

word-sensecanbeasourceforparticipants'semanticjudgment,whichin

turnsuggestsword-sensecanbeapartoflexicalrepresentationthat

consistsofword-organization.

However,wecannotdenythatmeaningsimilarityonthebasisof

someotheroverlookedlexicalfactorsmighthaveinfluencedthe

participants'lexicalprocessing,whichmightconnectthesemantically

relatedwordsinanetwork.Therefore,thepresentfindingpressesaneed

formoretheoreticalclarificationonwhetherL2speakerscanrespondto

words-pairsthatshareword-senseasaccuratelyandquicklyastothe

word-pairsthatnativespeakersconceiveassemanticallysimilarbutdo

notactuallyshareanyword-sensesuchassil"-s“pid,example-sample.

ordoubt-suspectii.e.,noneofthemshareanyword-sensewithinapair).

Nonetheless,thepresentfindingscanshedmorelightonthe

methodologicaladvancementofword-senseintwoways:(1)theyare

－ 2 1 －

methodologicallyusefulininvestigatingtheword-organizationmodeland

(2)theycanbeusedtoassesslexicalcompetenceintermsofsemantic

judgmenttestinfuturestudiesinthenativeandthesecondlanguage.

Conclusion

Vocabularyknowledgeisessentialinanyaspectoflanguageuse.

Themyththatthelexicalcompetenceofnativespeakersisfully

developedhasbeentakenforgrantedinL2vocabularyresearch,

especiallyinrelationtothesemanticjudgmenttests・Inthisstudy,such

competencewasdescribedintermsofnativespeakers'lexical

performanceinrelationtotheword-senseeffect.Whatwasfoundinthe

presentinvestigationwasthatnativespeakersrespondedsignificantly

morequicklytothesemanticallyrelatedword-pairsthantounrelated

word-pairs.Thisempiricalfindingservesasevidenceofthe

psycholinguisticmodelsofword-organization.Moreover,thepresent

findingfurtherstheoreticaldevelopmentintheareaofwhatwaywordsin

themindbecomeco-activatedinrelationtootherlexicalitems.

Inadditiontotheabovecontribution,thisnovelfindingmayalsoadd

amethodologicaladvancementtothefieldofL2vocabularyacquisition.

Thatis,thepresentempiricalfindingcanserveasabenchmarkof

native-likelexicalcompetenceinordertomakeadirectcomparisonwith

L2learners.Specifically,thiscanbereferredtowheninvestigating

whetherL2learnershavealsoacquiredtheword-senseforlexical

retrievalandsubsequentprocessingintheirlanguageuse.

Asforalimitationofthepresentstudy,theresearchdesignonly

allowedthestudytolookatdecontextualizedempiricalevidence,which

restrictsgeneralizabilityofthefindings.Thus,providingthecontextsfor

particularnear-synonymsintheexperimentwilladdthesupplemental

－2 2 －

informationofhownativespeakerswillprocessthetargetwordsin

relationtotheembeddedcontext.Thepresentstudylookedathownative

speakersrespondedtothesemanticallyrelatedwordswhichshared

commonword-sensesinthepair.Inordertoverifythatwordsare

interconnectedwiththeword-senseintheword-organizationinourmind.

theresearchneedstofocusonword-pairsthatdonotactuallyshareany

commonword-senseitemsdespitetheirmeaningclosenessratedby

nativespeakers.Investigatingthisbyhowquicklynativespeakers

respondtothemwilldeterminewhetherwordsareconnectedintermsof

word-sense.

Reference

Aitchson,J.(2003).WordsintheMind:Anintroductiontothemental

lexicon･London:Blackwell.

Anderson,J．R.(2005).Cog刀itivePs}'“oﾉogya"ぴだs〃刀p"でa"0775.New

York;Worth.

Azuma,T.,&VanOrden,G.C.(1997).Whysafeisbetterthanfast:The

relatednessofaword'smeaningsaffectslexicaldecisiontimes.

JournalorMemorya"〃Langiﾉage,36,484-504.

Bechtel,W.,&Graham,G.(1998).ACompa"わ〃toCog刀itiveSoだ"Ce・

Maiden,MA:BlackwellPublishersLtd.

Borowsky,R.,&Masson,M.E.J.(1996).Semanticambiguityeffectsin

wordidentification..ﾉひurnalofExperime"麹IPs}ﾉ℃方ology:Learning,

A化"7o〃ﾉﾄ&Cog刀ﾉ．"",22,63-85,

Bowerman,M.(1978).Theacquisitionofwordmeanings:Aninvestigation

intosomecurrentcongluicts.InN.Waterson&C.E.Snow(Eds.),

刀'ledevelopmentofcommunﾉ℃a"'on(pp.263-287).Chichester,UK:

Wilery.

－ 2 3 －

Collins,A.M.,&Loftus,E.F.(1975).Aspreadingactivationofsemantic

processing.PsychologiでaIReVI･ew.82407-428.

Collins,A.M､,&Quillan,M.R.(1969).Retrievaltimefromsemantic

memory.Journalofためa／Leamj"ga"dI/e功a／BehawDr卜8，

240－247．

Erten,I.H.,&Tekin,M.(2008).Effectsonvocabularyacquisitionof

presentingnewwordsinsemanticsetsversussemantically

unrelatedsets.System,36,407-422.

Fellbaum,C.(1998)．WordNet.'anelec"℃"/でle幻でaldatabase.Cambridge,

MA:MITPress.

Finkbeiner,M.(2002).TowardsapsycholinguisticmodelofadultL2

lexicalacquisition,representation,andprocessing.

Finkbeiner,M.,&Nicol,J.(2003).Semanticcategoryeffectsinsecond

languagewordlearning・AppliedPs}／℃加"刀g【"苫"℃s,24.369－383.

Finkbeiner,M.,Forster,K.,Nicol,J.、&Nakamura,K.(2004).Theroleof

polysemyinmaskedsemanticandtranslationpriming.Jou"7alof

〃e/刀oﾉー ya〃ぴZ,anguage.51,1－22.

Gernsbacher,M.A.(1984).Resolving20yearsofinconsistentinteractions

betweenlexicalfamiliarityandorthography,concreteness,and

polysemy.""rnalofExpe""］entalPsychology.Genem4皿a

256－281.

Goya(forthcoming).Relationshipbetweenword-senseinL2andLI

translationinword-knowledgedevelopment.1心ASELE.ﾉα"刀al.42

Jiang,N.(2002).Form-meaningmappinginvocabularyacquisitionina

secondlanguage.StuめどsinSecondLanguageAcquisﾉ"'on,18.

148－169.

Jiang,N.(2004a).Semantictransferanditsimplicationsforvocabulary

teachinginasecondlanguage.7乃e〃b咋rnLanguage.ﾉburnal,88,

416－432．

－ 2 4 －

Kucera,H.,&Francis,W.N.(1967).CompU垣"vnalAnalysisof

Present一吃.yAmericanEﾝﾌglish・Providence:BrownUniversity

press・

Labov,W・(1973).TheBoundariesofWordsandtheirMeaning.InBailey,

C一J.N.andR.W.Shuy(Eds.),NewI1灼ysofAnalyzing吃"匂"b〃ノカ

English,(pp.340-373).Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversity

Press.

Meyer,D.E.,&Schvanveldt,R.W.(1971).Facilitationinrecognizing

pairsofwords:Evidenceofadependencebetweenretrieval

operations.､ﾉburnalofExpe"海entalPsychology90,227-235.

Millis,M.L.,&Button,S・B.(1989).Theeffectofpolysemyonlexical

decisiontime:Nowyouseeit,nowyoudon't.Memory&Cog刀/加刀，

17,141-147.

Nation,I.S.P.(2001).LearningI/bcabα曲ryinAnotherLanguage.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rodd,J.,Gaskell,G.,&Marslen-Wilson,W.(2002).Makingsenseof

semanticambiguity:Semanticcompetitioninlexicalaccess.､ﾉ'ournal

ofMemoryandLanguage,芋6245-266.

Stahl,S.A.,&Nagy,W.E.(2006).TeachingWorぴ〃'eanings.Mahwah,NJ:

LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Webb,S.(2008).Theeffectsofcontextonincidentalvocabularylearning.

ReadinginaFore噌刀Language,20,232-245.

－25－

Abstract

LexicalPerformanceinLI:､M1atisNative-likeLexicalCompetence？

HidekiGoya

心的辞書に関する研究において､我々の語棄知識は意味的に結びついてい

ると言われている。またプライミングに関する研究では、word-sense

(Finkbeiner,2002)は母語話者の語桑使用に影響を与える事が分かっている。

このことより、心的辞書における語貧は、word-senseが共有される事によっ

て結びついていると考えられるが、これまでの意味判断実験において、

word-senseは十分に研究されているとは言えない。その上SLAに関する研

究では、母語話者の語糞知識は十分に熟達しているので、意味判断実験におい

て統計学的な差異を示さないと考えられたまま、word-senseを含まない実験

結果において第二言語話者の語童知識の熟達度の基準となっていた。

本実験ではword-senseを統制した語棄のベアを用い､母語話者in=20)

の意味判断実験での意味処理を観察した。被験者はコンピューターによる反応

速度を測る実験（オンライン実験）で、同義語の組み合わせ（〃＝39）が意味

的に似ているかどうかの判断を行った。結果として被験者の意味判断の正確さ

に統計学的な差は観察されなかったが、意味的に似通ったペアに対しては意味

判断が統計学的に遅かった。以上の結果はword-senseに関する実験の方法論

的発展を示唆している。それは、（1）心的辞書内の語棄は意味的に組織され、

（2）共有されるword-senseの数の差は、母語話者の意味判断の語童処理に

影響を及ぼさない、という事であった。以上の結果は意味判断実験を用いる母

語研究と第二言語習得研究において、被験者の語蕊能力を評価する際の基準と

なるであろう。

－2 6 －