L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 vocabulary learning.

This is a contribution from Multilingual Cognition and Language Use. Processing and typological perspectives. Edited by Luna Filipović and Martin Pütz.© 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2014. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 vocabulary learning

Xiaoyan Xia and Janny LeungBeijing Normal University / University of Hong Kong

One issue in multilingual cognition is whether there is a unitary or two concep-tual systems that map onto different languages. This chapter addresses this issue by exploring whether and how prototypicality effects manifest in L2 vocabulary learning. In our two-step study we first used free sense-listing and prototypical-ity-rating tasks to locate cultural variations in prototypicality of the senses of 17 polysemous words between Chinese and English. Then we carried out a no-cue-English-word-learning-and-immediate-cued-recall task to examine whether Chinese participants would recall better and faster newly-learned English word senses that are prototypical in Chinese but not in English. The existence of L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 vocabulary learning are confirmed, pro-viding support for the unitary conceptual model in L2 learning.

Keywords: Chinese, English, polysemous words, second language acquisition, unitary conceptual model

1. Introduction

Conceptual categories exhibit graded structure such that some instances are more representative than others (e.g. Rosch and Mervis 1975; Armstrong, Gleitman, and Gleitman 1983; Barsalou 1983). Prototypicality is a notion used to designate the degree of an instance in terms of its being representative of the corresponding category (e.g. Rips, Shoben, and Smith 1973; Rosch 1973a). Being cognitively sali-ent, prototypical members are observed to be more easily encoded into and better retrieved from memory (e.g. Rosch 1973b). These observable psychological effects are termed prototypicality effects.

Prototypicality effects have been observed to be present in L1 vocabulary learning. Anglin (1977), for example, reported that children could correctly label typical animals such as dogs or cats as animal but usually would not do


288 Xiaoyan Xia and Janny Leung

so with atypical animals such as butterflies or ants. Similarly, Meints, Plunkett, and Harris (1999) showed that 12-month-old, 18-month-old, and 24-month-old children associated the given category names (e.g. bird) with prototypical members (e.g. a sparrow) before they associated them with non-prototypical members (e.g. an ostrich).

Previous research however has paid inadequate attention to prototypicality effects in the L2 context. For L1 learners, word learning is an index of cognitive development (MacWhinney 2008), since it often coincides with the emergence of a new conceptual category or the modification of an existing one. Unlike L1 learn-ers, L2 learners already possess a conceptual system and the experience of estab-lishing associations between words and concepts. A theoretical controversy thus arises as to whether L2 learning involves the construction of a separate conceptual system, i.e. the dual model (see Ellis, Heimbach, Tanaka, and Yamazaki 1999) or the reconstruction of the existing one, i.e. the unitary model (see De Groot 1992). This chapter follows and provides support for the latter.

In Cognitive Linguistic theory, conceptual categories, stored as mental con-cepts, are assumed to be the outcomes of the interaction of the objective world, the physical and psychological peculiarities of the human body, and the cultural environments (e.g. Lakoff 1987: 304–337; Györi 1996: 161). Consequently, trans-lation equivalents of conceptual categories across languages are likely to vary from culture to culture in terms of content and patterns of concept organization. The concepts in the conceptual system, as held in Cognitive Linguistic theory, are where meanings of a language come from because language is “a collection of form-meaning pairs” (Lakoff 1987: 539). This interpretation of language and meaning implies that there exists not only a parallel relationship but also a moti-vational one between the underlying concepts or conceptual structures and the surface linguistic forms. Based on the unitary conceptual model in L2 learning and the Cognitive Linguistic definitions of conceptual categories, language, and meaning, a prediction is derived: L1-based prototypicality effects will be present in L2 vocabulary learning. It is hypothesized that when there is a difference in the patterns of concept categorization between L1 and L2 conceptual systems, it is the L1-based patterns of concept categorization that underlie a person’s L2 learning performances.


Prototypicality in L2 vocabulary learning 289

2. Working hypothesis and experiment design

What would happen when the to-be-learned L2 words involved cultural variation in category prototypicality? The working hypothesis was that L2 learners would recall the newly-learned L2 words with L1-based high prototypicality better in terms of production quantity and faster in terms of production order than those with L2-based high prototypicality. Native speakers of Chinese and English were invited to participate in this study, with the former group, which consisted of Chinese learners of English, as the focus. From here on, category instances that were rated prototypical in Chinese (i.e. L1) culture but non-prototypical in English (i.e. L2) culture are abbreviated as the Cp-Enp instances, and those that were rated prototypical in English culture but non-prototypical in Chinese culture as the Ep-Cnp instances.

Two experiments were designed and conducted to test our hypothesis. Experiment 1 was composed of a free sense-listing task and a prototypicality rat-ing task. The aim of these two tasks was to locate instances with cultural varia-tion in prototypicality in the given conceptual categories, which were the building blocks for Experiment 2.

Experiment 2 was a no-cued English-word-learning and immediate cued-recall task. This task was to address whether Chinese participants, after being presented with new English words for category instances involving cultural vari-ations in prototypicality, would recall the newly-learned English words denoting the Cp-Enp instances better in terms of production quantity and faster in terms of production order than those denoting the Ep-Cnp instances.

2.1 Experiment 1: Identification of cultural variations in prototypicality

The testing of the hypothesis concerned required, first of all, the determination of a set of norms from which instances that were representative of the range of category members and identifiable to members of the two target cultures could be selected. The second requirement was that the cultural variations in prototypicality between the two target cultures could be identified from that set of norms. Since the participants recruited to take part in the prototypicality rating task were all Americans, English culture in this study was constrained to a very narrow sense, i.e. the culture of the United States of America only. Culture here specifically referred to the cultural peculiarities conveyed in the prototypicality ratings given by the Chinese and English participants in the prototypicality rating task.



Categories composed of multiple and related senses of polysemous words were used because they abounded in cultural variations. Color terms, animal names, and plant names were chosen for they have been consistently shown in the literature to convey various cultural peculiarities in senses at the connotative level due to geographical, historical, or cultural reasons (e.g. Liu 2008; Zhang 2009; Yin 2008). The selected polysemous words were white, red, green, yellow, purple, plum blossom, bamboo, pine, lotus, dragon, dog, cat, owl, crow, magpie, snake, and ox.

To gather senses of each word for the later prototypicality rating task, a free sense-listing task was used in conjunction with reference to a dictionary when necessary. The reasons for adopting the above method instead of totally resorting to the entries of a dictionary for the sense collection are two-fold. First, the senses data pool gathered from checking dictionaries might be biased by the experi-menter’s idiosyncratic interests. Second, it is possible that some senses used by people are not included by the dictionaries. A free sense-listing task gives a picture of what senses of a target lexical item are actually known to and commonly used by most speakers of the target languages. The dictionary was consulted only when the number of senses collected via the free sense-listing task for a target item was too small for the later prototypicality rating task.

Seventy-eight native speakers of Chinese from the University of Hong Kong and 75 native speakers of English from Michigan State University and University of California, Davis, were invited to rate on a 3-point scale the senses of the selected words in terms of how typical a sense is in the given category in their respective home cultures.1 Participants found the task readily understandable and no one questioned or complained about the task. Two statistical methods were used to check reliability. First, the method of Split-Half Correlation was adopted to assess the inter-rater reliability. All of the Split-Half reliabilities except for two (i.e. those for senses of snake and magpie) in the English group were high, ranging from 0.81 to 0.98 with p < 0.05. These reliabilities indicated a high degree of agree-ment among the participants regarding the prototypicality of individual instances

1. It is possible that the use of a 3-point rating scale may have resulted in a loss of finer dis-criminability for some items. The reason for adopting a 3-point rating scale in this study was two-fold. First, finer discriminability was not a concern in this study since the purpose of this rating task here was to locate manifest cultural differences. Second, for participants it would be very time-demanding and exhausting trying to decide whether an instance is a relatively poor or quite poor example of a category. A 3-point scale has the advantage of demanding less cogni-tive efforts from the participants in their rating process and hence keeping them from getting exhausted and confused in the rating task.



in the given categories. Second, the range of points in mean prototypicality scores across instances in each category was examined. Except for senses of snake and magpie in the English group, a minimum range of 1.26 points in mean prototypi-cality scores across instances was obtained. Given that the maximal value was 3.00, this statistical datum of 1.26 safely suggested that participants were able to make distinctive and meaningful judgments about the degree to which instances were representative members of their respective categories. To sum up, in the categories of senses of white, red, green, yellow, purple, plum blossom, bamboo, pine, lotus, dragon, dog, cat, owl, crow, and ox, a high degree of inter-rater agree-ment and a minimum range of 1.26 points in mean prototypicality scores were obtained. These statistical values indicate that the mean prototypicality rating obtained for each instance in those 15 categories could be regarded as a rea-sonable reflection of a common judgment within individual culture groups and hence ready to be used in the subsequent experiment. With regard to senses of snake and magpie, given that no clear reasons could be identified for the obtained moderately high Split-Half reliability values, they were excluded from the data pool for the subsequent experiment.

Second, to determine the degree of divergence or convergence between the obtained Chinese and English prototypicality gradients, the Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated for the mean prototypicality ratings. Among all the correlations obtained, the values of senses of green (r = 0.66), dog (r = 0.67), cat (r = 0.60), and ox (r = 0.74), with p < 0.05, are moderately high. These correla-tion values indicate a certain degree of overlap between the obtained Chinese and English prototypicality norms. The correlation values of senses of white (r = 0.35), red (r = 0.29), yellow (r = −0.40), purple (r = 0.51), bamboo (r = −0.28), pine (r = −0.06), lotus (r = 0.38), dragon (r = −0.03), owl (r = 0.66), and crow (r = 0.47), with p > 0.05, indicate that the prototypicality gradients rated by the two culture groups are very different from each other. Furthermore, in senses of plum blossom, a negative value (r = −0.68, p = 0.045) is obtained. This statistical value indicates the prototypicality ratings given by the two culture groups to the given instances are almost opposite to each other. The instances rated as prototypical by one culture group were rated as non-prototypical by the counterpart group.

To identify the specific cross-cultural differences, the Mann-Whitney U test was adopted to compare the prototypicality means of each instance from the two prototypicality norms. The word senses with cultural variations in prototypicality indicated by the Mann-Whitney U test are summarized in Table 1 and ready to use in Experiment 2.



Table 1. A summary of cultural variations in prototypicality in the 15 categories indicated by Mann-Whitney U test values

Categories Instances with p < 0.05 Instances significantly more typical in Chinese culture

Instances significantly more typical in English culture

senses of white

pure, poor, fruitless, honorable, manifest, fortunate, wedding, horrible, religious, funeral, idiotic

pure, poor, fruitless, manifest, horrible, funeral, idiotic

honorable, fortunate, wedding, religious

senses of red

famous, revolutionary, fortunate, golden, hot, festive, angry, prosperous, vicious, worldly, aggressive, righteous, passionate

famous, revolutionary, fortunate, golden, festive, prosperous, worldly, righteous, passionate

hot, angry, vicious, aggressive

senses of green

flourishing, inexperienced, environmental, sick, insulting, envious, spooky, peaceful, young

flourishing, insulting, spooky, peaceful, young

inexperienced, environmental, sick, envious

senses of yellow

withered, dignified, unsuccessful, mellow, cowardly, pornographic, happy, haggard, vibrant, cautious

withered, dignified, unsuccessful, pornographic, haggard

mellow, cowardly, happy, vibrant, cautious

senses of purple

dignified, elaborate, mysterious, royal, homosexual, profound

dignified, mysterious, profound

elaborate, royal, homosexual

senses ofplum blossom

hardy, winter, noble, indomitable, Spring, tenacious, narcissistic

hardy, winter, noble, indomitable, tenacious, narcissistic

Spring

senses of bamboo

thriving, noble, political, promoted, exotic, incorruptible, upright, Asian, righteous, thin, budding

thriving, noble, political, promoted, incorruptible, upright, righteous, thin, budding

exotic, Asian

senses of pine

dauntless, upright, rural, tenacious, longevous, clean, healthy, Christmas, immortal, longing

dauntless, upright, tenacious, longevous, healthy, immortal

rural, clean, Christmas, longing

senses of lotus

Asian, graceful, crunchy, pure, noble, incorruptible, upright

graceful, crunchy, pure, noble, incorruptible, upright

Asian



Categories Instances with p < 0.05 Instances significantly more typical in Chinese culture

Instances significantly more typical in English culture

senses of dragon

dignified, evil, majestic, detailed, crowning, glorious, fierce, imperial, scary, energetic, mysterious, sacred

dignified, majestic, crowning, glorious, imperial, energetic, mysterious, sacred

evil, detailed, fierce, scary

senses of dog

lowly, pathetic, servile, abject, dependent, caring

lowly, pathetic, servile, abject

dependent, caring

senses ofcat

skillful, independent, obedient, changeable, mysterious, lordly, obsequious

skillful, obedient, changeable, mysterious, lordly, obsequious

independent,

senses ofowl

dark, wise, haunting, mystical, dangerous, fair

mystical, dangerous, fair

dark, wise, haunting

senses ofcrow

ominous, scary, plaintive, clamorous

ominous, plaintive, clamorous

scary

senses ofox

devoted, diligent, sure-footed, blunt, outstanding, sincere

devoted, diligent, sure-footed, blunt, outstanding, sincere

/

2.2 Experiment 2: The function of the culture-based prototypicality in L2 vocabulary learning

2.2.1 ParticipantsForty-six native speakers of Chinese participated in this task. They were all first-year non-English-major college students from two level-B English classes at Beihang University, Beijing, China and possessed the same level of English proficiency.2 They all started learning English six years ago but their exposure to English was mainly confined to classroom instruction.

2.2.2 MaterialStimuli materials were composed of (i) an instruction sheet and some trial lists, (ii) two lists of English words serving as the learning material, with each list containing 8 target words, (iii) some arithmetic calculations, which served as a

2. All non-English-major freshmen, upon entering the Beihang University, need to take the General English Placement Test. The performance of a student in this placement test determines to which type of English class he or she will be assigned.



buffer-clearing task between the presentation of the last item in one list and the commencement of the cued-recall task, (vi) an Answer Sheet on which the par-ticipants were expected to write down first the answers to the arithmetic questions and then the English words they could recollect upon the given cues from the previously-presented list.3

The to-be-learned English words were instances (i.e. word senses) selected from the conceptual categories rated in Experiment 1. The selection of the instances was guided by five criteria. First, a candidate instance should involve cultural vari-ation in prototypicality, i.e. being either Cp-Enp or Ep-Cnp. Second, from each category, two instances, i.e. one Cp-Enp and one Ep-Cnp, were selected to make a contrasting pair. Third, the English words denoting the candidate instances should be unknown to the participants. Hence, word frequency was a controlled variable. Fourth, the length of the English words for the paired instances was a second con-trolled variable. The number of letters between the two-paired English words dif-fered by 3 at most. Fifth, all the selected English words could be easily pronounced based on the written forms. These criteria were established to ensure that except for the investigated variable of the culture-specific prototypicality, the English words for the paired instances were equal in terms of learnability at the linguistic level.

All instances in Table 1 met the first criterion. To ensure that all the to-be-tested English words were unknown to the participants, a 91-English-word pre-test vocabulary survey was conducted to 95 potential participants. This vocabulary survey was composed of 79 category instances (9 from senses of white, 4 from senses of red, 7 from senses of green, 9 from senses of yellow, 3 from senses of purple, 7 from senses of bamboo, 9 from senses of pine, 6 from senses of lotus, 11 from senses of dragon, 5 from senses of dog, 6 from senses of cat, and 3 from senses of owl) and 12 category labels (i.e. the polysemous words concerned). The purpose of testing the 12 category labels was to make sure that these 12 English words were known to the participants because they were the cues used to solicit participants’ recall performances in the following cued-recall task.

Two classes, consisting of respectively 45 and 50 first-year Chinese college students, participated in the pre-test vocabulary survey a week before the no-cued English-word-learning and immediate cued-recall task. Participants were asked to

3. A pilot study was conducted among another three groups of altogether 15 students, based on Miller’s (1956) suggestion of the “seven plus or minus two” items short-term-memory capacity. To answer how many words should be given to the participants in one to-be-remembered word list in the main study, the three groups were given 6, 8, and 10 words in one list respectively. The results showed that the 8-word list was the most suitable for the recall task. Participants in the 6-word group reported that it was not difficult to recall 6 new words in a row while students in the 10-word group complained that 10 new words were too much for their short-term memory capacity.



mark out the words they already knew. Altogether 37 English words were reported as “known” to fewer than 10 participants in each of the two classes and hence were regarded as potential words for the recall task. From the 37 English words, 16 words, consisting of eight contrasting pairs, were selected on the basis of the five criteria discussed above. Table 2 displays the 16 selected English words.

Table 2. The selected 16 English words for the no-cued English-word-learning and immediate cued-recalled task

Categories the Cp-Enp instances

Prototypicality means

the Ep-Cnp instances

Prototypicality means

Chinese English Chinese English

senses of white manifest 1.80 0.58 honorable 0.76 1.40senses of yellowsenses of yellow

withered 2.38 1.05 vibrant 0.56 1.85pornography 2.64 0.08 cowardly 0.56 1.32

senses of dog lowly 1.88 1.05 caring 1.64 2.30senses of bamboo upright 2.86 1.05 exotic 0.22 1.57senses of dragon imperial 2.92 1.55 fierce 0.98 2.75senses of green flourish 2.80 2.25 envious 0.48 2.35senses of red prosperous 2.78 0.67 vicious 0.54 1.67

Of the 90 participants who attended the pre-test vocabulary survey, 46 reported that they were familiar with the 12 polysemous words but did not know the selected 16 English words. They were invited to attend the subsequent no-cued English-word-learning and immediate cued-recall task. These 46 participants, 20 from one class and the other 26 from the other class, attended the experiment on the basis of the classes they were in; hence two groups were constructed, with one group receiving English cues and the other Chinese cues. The Chinese-cued group was set up as a control group.

2.2.3 ProcedureTwo 8-word learning lists were constructed from the 16 target words for the recall task. Each English word on display was accompanied with one Chinese equivalent, which was given to help the participants to understand the meaning of the target word. Each target word together with one Chinese equivalent, placed in the center of a PowerPoint flash in Font 130, was projected onto a big screen in the front of the classroom.

For each of the two 8-word lists, participants were expected to complete the following three tasks consecutively: (i) in word learning section, memorizing the meaning and spelling of the given English words, (ii) in arithmetic calculation section, completing two arithmetic calculations, and (iii) in cued-recall section,



recollecting, according to the given cues, as many the previously-presented English words as possible. In word learning section, the eight English words in each list were presented, without any cues, to the participants one by one at intervals of 40 seconds. In cued-recall section, the concerned polysemous words, either in Chinese or in English, were given as retrieving cues.

The eight words in each list were presented in random order to the partici-pants, with the stipulation that not more than two Cp-Enp or Ep-Cnp instances from one culture or two instances from the same category be presented consecu-tively. Table 3 is a summary of the experiment procedures.

Table 3. The procedures in the no-cued English-word-learning and immediate cued-recall task*

Groups Pre-test vocabulary survey

The English-word-learning and immediate cued-recall task (a week later)

instructions and trials

word- learning section (List 1)

arithmetic calculation

section (List 1)

immediate cued-

recalled section (List 1)

word- learning section (List 2)

arithmetic calculation

section (List 2)

immediate cued-

recalled section (List 2)

G1 (English cues)

10′ 5′ 5′20′′ 30′′ 3′ 5′20′′ 30′′ 3′

G2 (Chinese cues)

10′ 5′ 5′20′′ 30′′ 3′ 5′20′′ 30′′ 3′

* Note: the symbol ′ means minute; the symbol ′′ means second

2.2.4 Data conversion and analysisAll the correctly recalled English words were converted into one of the follow-ing three types, namely the Cp-Enp responses, the Ep-Cnp responses, and other responses, and analyzed via the following two means. First, mean numbers of the Cp-Enp responses and the Ep-Cnp instances were calculated and compared: (i) within groups, to see whether English words designating the Cp-Enp instances were better retrieved by the Chinese participants than those designating the Ep-Cnp instances, and (ii) between groups, to see whether there were any dif-ferences caused by the difference in the given cues. Second, frequencies of the Cp-Enp responses and the Ep-Cnp responses in participants’ first responses to each given cue were counted and compared separately: (i) within groups, to see whether English words designating the Cp-Enp instances were retrieved prior to those designating the Ep-Cnp instances, and (ii) between groups, to see whether there were any differences caused by the difference in the given cues.



2.2.5 Results 2.2.5.1 Production quantity: Mean number of English words recalled by culture-based prototypicality. The first prediction of the hypothesis, i.e., English words denoting the Cp-Enp instances would be retrieved better by Chinese learners in terms of quantity than those denoting the Ep-Cnp instances, was tested via the related sample T test. In the Chinese-cued group, Chinese participants were found to recall significantly more English words designating the Cp-Enp instances (M = 5.88, SD = 1.53) than those designating the Ep-Cnp instances (M = 2.58, SD = 1.45); t (25) = 9.12, p < 0.05. Similarly, in the English-cued group, a signifi-cant difference is obtained in the number of recalled English words for the Cp-Enp instances (M = 5.20, SD = 1.11) and that for the Ep-Cnp instances (M = 2.60, SD = 1.19); t (19) = 8.59, p < 0.05. Participants recollected more English words designating the Cp-Enp instances than those designating the Ep-Cnp instances.

Would the difference in the language of retrieving cues exert influence upon the presence of the prototypicality effect? Independent-samples T tests were con-ducted between the means of the recollected words by prototypicality from the English-cued and Chinese-cued groups. The results show that as far as the means of the collected Cp-Enp responses is concerned, there is no significant difference between the Chinese-cued group (M = 5.20, SD = 1.11) and the English-cued group (M = 5.88, SD = 1.53), t (44) = −1.688, p = 0.099. Similarly, as far as the means of the collected Ep-Cnp responses is concerned, no significant difference is observed between the Chinese-cued group (M = 2.60, SD = 1.19) and the English-cued group (M = 2.58, SD = 1.45), t (44) = 0.058, p = 0.954. The difference in the language of the given cues did not have any influence upon the recall performance between groups. In both Chinese-cued and English-cued conditions, Chinese learners of English recollected better the newly learned English words designating the Cp-Enp instances than those designating the Ep-Cnp instances.

Our finding is consistent with related studies which report that category members with high prototypicality are more closely connected to the queried cat-egory than members with low prototypicality and hence are more easily activated by the queried category label (e.g. Castgeb and Strauss 2006; Chrea, Valentin, and Abdi 2009; Kiran and Thompson 2003; Onishi, Murphy, and Bock 2008; Rosch 1973a, 1975).

Table 4 displays participants’ recall performances in each of the seven tar-get categories. An interesting phenomenon draws our attention. For senses of dragon and green in the English-cued group, the frequency statistics show that the percentage of the Cp-Enp responses is lower than that of the Ep-Cnp responses. The manifestation of the Chinese-based prototypicality effect in the form of the Cp-Enp instances being retrieved better than the Ep-Cnp instances is not observed.



A Chi-Square test was conducted to examine whether the various responses in the senses of dragon category in the English-cued group were equally preferred. The result, χ2 (2, N = 32) = 0.813, p = 0.666, indicates that Chinese participants in this group had no preference for either the Cp-Enp instances or the Ep-Cnp instances when responding to the given cue dragon. A similar result is observed in the senses of dragon category in the Chinese-cued group. The Chi-Square statistical value, χ2 (2, N = 42) = 1.000, p = 0.607, indicates that the difference between the Cp-Enp responses and the Ep-Cnp responses is not significant. This consistency indicates that the Chinese-based prototypicality effect in the form of the Cp-Enp instances being better retrieved than the Ep-Cnp instances is absent in the sense of dragon category. However, it is worth taking a look at the accumulative percentage of the recollected Cp-Enp responses and Ep-Cnp responses. Being 55.0% in the English-cued group and 57.7% in the Chinese-cued group, these two accumulative per-centages indicate that there is a strong preference for the prototypical instances, namely the Cp-Enp and Ep-Cnp ones, as opposed to the non-prototypical or atypi-cal instances, namely the other responses, being 25.0% in the English-cued group and 23.1% in the Chinese-cued group. The prototypicality effect as reflected in

Table 4. Frequencies of the Cp-Enp instances and the Ep-Cnp instances in the two groups*

Cued in English (n = 20) Cp-Enp Rs (%)

Ep-Cnp Rs (%)

Other Rs (%)

Missing Rs (%)

senses of white 18 (45.0%) 3 (7.5%) 10 (25.0%) 9 (22.5%)senses of yellow 34 (42.5%) 8 (10.0%) 12 (15.0%) 26 (32.5%)senses of dog 14 (35.0%) 10 (25.0%) 12 (30.0%) 4 (10.0%)senses of dragon 9 (22.5%) 13 (32.5%) 10 (25.0%) 8 (20.0%)senses of red 6 (15.0%) 2 (5.0%) 9 (22.5%) 23 (57.5%)senses of bamboo 18 (45.0%) 2 (5.0%) 10 (25.0%) 10 (25.0%)senses of green 5 (5.0%) 14 (35.0%) 8 (20.0%) 13 (32.5%)total 104 (32.5%) 52 (16.3%) 71 (22.2%) 93 (29.1%)

Cued in Chinese (n = 26) Cp-Enp Rs (%)

Ep-Cnp Rs (%)

Other Rs (%)

Missing Rs (%)

senses of white 22 (42.3%) 10 (19.2%) 15 (28.8%) 5 (9.6%)senses of yellow 48 (46.2%) 15 (14.4%) 33 (31.7%) 8 (7.7%)senses of dog 17 (32.7%) 8 (15.4%) 26 (50.0%) 1 (1.9%)senses of dragon 17 (32.7%) 13 (25.0%) 12 (23.1%) 10 (19.2%)senses of red 10 (19.2%) 3 (5.8%) 30 (57.7%) 9 (17.3%)senses of bamboo 20 (38.5%) 10 (19.2%) 13 (25.0%) 9 (17.3%)senses of green 17 (32.7%) 10 (19.2%) 17 (32.7%) 8 (15.4%)total 151 (36.3%) 69 (16.6%) 146 (35.1%) 50 (12.0%)

* Note: Rs = responses



the quantity of recalled instances is indeed present. Possible explanations for this response pattern are provided in Section 3.

By contrast, the English-cued and Chinese-cued groups behaved differently for the senses of green category. In the Chinese-cued group, participants tended to respond to the given cue with the Cp-Enp instances (32.7%) instead of the Ep-Cnp instances (19.2%). In the English-cued group, participants, upon the given cues, retrieved much better the Ep-Cnp instances (35.0%) than the Cp-Enp instances (5.0%). Possible explanations for this observation are also provided in Section 3.

2.2.5.2 Production order: Frequencies of the Cp-Enp instances and the Ep-Cnp instances in participants’ first responses to the given cues. The second prediction of the hypothesis, i.e., Chinese learners would be quicker in recollecting English words designating the Cp-Enp instances than those designating the Ep-Cnp instances, was examined by Chi-Square and binomial tests. Table 5 summarizes Chinese participants’ first responses to both English and Chinese cues and the results of Chi-Square tests for individual categories and for the total first responses in each group.

As exhibited in the two total rows in Table 5, in both groups, the majority of participants’ first responses to the given cues, being 50.0% in the English-cued group and 52.7% in the Chinese-cued group, fall into the category of the Cp-Enp responses. 20.0% of the recall performance in the English-cued group and 11.5% in the Chinese-cued group fall into the category of the Ep-Cnp responses. These two pairs of frequency statistics also indicate that there is no difference in the recall performance between the English-cued and Chinese-cued groups. The lan-guages of the given cues did not have an influence upon participants’ response pattern in this cued-recall task.

Chi-square tests were conducted to examine the distribution of participants’ first responses by culture-based prototypicality in the two groups respectively. As shown in the two total rows in Table 5, in the English-cued group, the Chi-square statistics suggests that in participants’ first responses, preference for the three types of responses, namely the Cp-Enp instances, the Ep-Cnp instances, and other responses, is not equally distributed, χ2 (2, N = 125) = 28.912, p < 0.05. A similar result is obtained in the Chinese-cued group: Chinese students showed preference for one type of responses to the other two in their first responses, χ2 (2, N = 176) = 47.943, p < 0.05. In a follow up, binomial tests were used to deter-mine the distribution of the Cp-Enp responses and the Ep-Cnp responses to see whether they were equally preferred in each of the two groups. The binomial test statistics show that in both groups, participants preferred the Cp-Enp instances to the Ep-Cnp instances in their first responses to the given cues, with p < 0.05. The second prediction of the hypothesis concerning the production order of L2



words recalled by culture-based prototypicality is statistically confirmed as well. Chinese participants, after being exposed to new English words that denoted cat-egory instances involving cultural variation in prototypicality, retrieved English words of the Cp-Enp instances prior to those of the Ep-Cnp instances in the cued recall task.

A surprising observation, however, is obtained when a closer look is taken at frequency distribution of the recalled Cp-Enp instances and Ep-Cnp instances in each of the categories in Table 5. The Chinese-based prototypicality effect in the form of the Cp-Enp instances being retrieved prior to the Ep-Cnp instances is observed only in some categories. In the English-cued group, this prototypicality effect is observed in three categories, namely senses of white, yellow, and bamboo, with p < 0.05. In the Chinese-cued group, this manifestation of the L1-based pro-totypicality effect is obtained in four categories, namely senses of white, yellow, bamboo, and green, with p < 0.05. In the remaining categories, binomial test statis-tics suggest that participants did not have a clear preference for the given Cp-Enp

Table 5. A summary of participants’ first responses to the given cues in the two groups and Chi-Square test results*

Cued in English (first responses) (n=20)

Cp-Enp Rs (%)

Ep-Cnp Rs (%)

Other Rs (%)

Missing Rs (%)

Chi- Square

df Asymp. Sig.

senses of white 17 (85.0%) 0 2 (10.0%) 1 (5.0%) 11.842 1 0.001senses of yellow 17 (85.0%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (5.0%) 26.947 2 0.000senses of dog 5 (25.0%) 8 (40.0%) 7 (35.0%) 0 0.700 2 0.705senses of dragon 4 (20.0%) 9 (45.0%) 3 (15.0%) 4 (20.0%) 3.875 2 0.144senses of red 5 (25.0%) 1 (5.0%) 5 (25.0%) 9 (45.0%) 2.909 2 0.234senses of bamboo 18 (90.0%) 0 2 (10.0%) 0 12.800 1 0.000senses of green 4 (20.0%) 9 (45.0%) 7 (35.0%) 0 1.900 2 0.387total 70 (50.0%) 28 (20.0%) 27 (19.3%) 15 (10.7%) 28.912 2 0.000

cued in Chinese (first responses) (n=26)

Cp-Enp Rs (%)

Ep-Cnp Rs (%)

Other Rs (%)

Missing Rs (%)

Chi- Square

df Asymp. Sig.

senses of white 19 (73.1%) 2 (7.7%) 4 (15.4%) 1 (3.8%) 20.720 2 0.000senses of yellow 25 (96.2%) 0 1 (3.8%) 0 22.154 1 0.000senses of dog 8 (30.8%) 4 (15.4%) 14 (53.8%) 0 5.846 2 0.054senses of dragon 8 (30.8%) 9 (34.6%) 5 (19.2%) 4 (15.4%) 1.182 2 0.554senses of red 4 (15.4%) 2 (7.7%) 19 (73.1%) 1 (3.8%) 20.720 2 0.000senses of bamboo 19 (73.1%) 1 (3.8%) 6 (23.1%) 0 19.923 2 0.000senses of green 13 (50.0%) 3 (11.5%) 10 (38.5%) 0 6.077 2 0.048total 96 (52.7%) 21 (11.5%) 59 (32.4%) 6 (3.3%) 47.943 2 0.000




instances to the given Ep-Cnp instances. It seems that the connections between the given cues and the given Cp-Enp instances did not have advantage over those between the given cues and the given Ep-Cnp instances. The prediction of the L1-based prototypicality effect concerning the production order by culture-based prototypicality seems to be short of statistical support in many categories.

It is however too hasty to reject the prediction when we take a look at the other responses column in Table 5. The percentage of the other responses is quite remarkable in senses of dog (which are 35.0% in the English-cued group and 53.8% in the Chinese-cued group), in senses of dragon (which are 15.0% in the English-cued group and 19.2% in the Chinese-cued group), and in senses of red (which are 25.0% in the English-cued group and 73.1% in the Chinese-cued group). Would it be the case that the other responses provided by the participants to the cues dog/狗 (gou, Chinese character for ‘dog’), dragon/龙 (long, Chinese character for ‘dragon’), red/红 (hong, Chinese character for ‘red’) are also typical connotative senses of the corresponding Chinese labels in Chinese culture? Tables 6, 7, and 8 are summaries of participants’ first responses to the cues of dog/狗 (gou), dragon/龙 (long), red/红 (hong) in both groups.

Table 6. A summary of participants’ first responses in senses of red in both groups*

Senses of red cued in English (n = 20) Senses of red cued in Chinese (n = 26)

Collected Rs 1st Rs Collected Rs 1st Rs

Cp-Ebnp Rs prosperous 5 (25.0%) prosperous 4 (15.4%)Ep-Cnp Rs vicious 1 (5.0%) vicious 2 (7.7%)other Rs fierce 1 (5.0%) fierce 5 (19.2%)

flourish 2 (10.0%) flourish 2 (7.7%)imperial 1 (5.0%) imperial 2 (7.7%)envious 1 (5.0%) envious 2 (7.7%)

upright 4 (15.4%)exotic 4 (15.4%)

missing Rs 9 (45.0%) 1 (3.8%)total 20 (100%) 26 (100%)


As shown in Table 6, the other responses provided by the participants in the English-cued group to the cue red are fierce (5.0%), flourish (10.0%), imperial (5.0%), and envious (5.0%); those provided by the participants in the Chinese-cued group to the cue 红 (hong) are fierce (19.2%), flourish (7.7%), imperial (7.7%), envious (7.7%), upright (15.4%), and exotic (15.4%). All these responses except for exotic are indeed common connotative senses of the Chinese cue 红 (hong). The color red is a source of life: it is the color of the sun, the fire, and the blood. From



these experiences, 红 (hong) in Chinese culture has derived the senses of fortunate, prosperity, loyalty, and integrity. Meanwhile, it is a source of danger: the fire can destroy things and people turn red – metaphorically get boiling blood – when they get angry. These bodily experiences give the Chinese word 红 (hong) the senses of fierce, anger, jealousy, and destruction. Hence, if we add the percentage of these other responses to that of the selected Cp-Enp instance in this experi-ment, namely prosperous, we obtain a new percentage of the Cp-Enp responses which includes the percentages of prosperous, fierce, flourish, imperial, envious, and upright, which are 50% in the English-cued and 72.9% in the Chinese-cued groups. Binomial tests were run to determine whether in each group the number of the re-defined Cp-Enp responses significantly outnumbered that of the Ep-Cnp responses. The statistics, with p < 0.05 in both groups, suggest that participants did tend to respond to the given cues, either in Chinese or in English, with the re-defined Cp-Enp instances than with the Ep-Cnp instances. In these re-defined sets of data in senses of red, the L1-based prototypicality effect, as reflected in the form of L1-based prototypical instances being retrieved prior to L2-based prototypical instances, is observed.

Table 7 displays all the first responses to the cues of dragon and 龙 (long). The other responses collected in the English-cued group are upright (5.0%) and exotic (10.0%); and those collected in the Chinese-cued group are upright (3.8%) and vicious (15.4%). Among the other responses obtained, upright is a sense typically associated with the concept of dragon in Chinese culture while vicious is a sense typically associated with the concept of dragon in English culture. If we reallocate upright to the Cp-Enp responses and vicious to the Ep-Cnp responses, we obtain a new set of frequencies of various responses. Binomial tests were run between the percentages of the redefined Cp-Enp responses (25% in the English-cued group and 34.6% in the Chinese-cued group) and those of the redefined Ep-Cnp responses (45.0% in the English-cued group and 50% in the Chinese-cued group). The statistics, being p > 0.05 in both groups, suggest that participants showed no preference for the redefined Cp-Enp or Ep-Cnp instances in their first responses to the given cues, either dragon or 龙 (long). The manifestation of the Chinese-based prototypicality effect in the form of the Cp-Enp instances being retrieved prior to the Ep-Cnp instances is not observed. This observation is explained in Section 3.

Table 8 summarizes participants’ first responses to the cues of dog and 狗 (gou). As shown, participants in both groups responded to the two cues with the same responses, namely lowly, caring, honorable, vibrant, and cowardly. This observation indicates that participants’ responses are not random selections from the previously presented English-word list. All these five responses are indeed connotative senses of the Chinese word 狗 (gou). Among them, lowly and cow-ardly are two connotative senses that are very conventional to the word 狗 (gou)



in Chinese culture. Chi-Square tests were run to examine the frequency distribu-tion of the re-defined Cp-Enp responses (i.e. lowly and cowardly), the re-defined Ep-Cnp responses (i.e. caring), and other responses (i.e. honorable and vibrant) in both groups. The Chi-Square statistics, being χ2 (2, N = 20) = 0.700, p = 0.705 in the English-cued group and χ2 (2, N = 26) = 0.469, p = 0.096 in the English-cued group, suggest that participants’ preference for the three types of responses was equally distributed. The Chinese-based prototypicality effect in the form of the Cp-Enp instances being retrieved prior to the Ep-Cnp instances is not present in senses of dog. The reason for this absence is still unclear. One possibility is that the selected Cp-Enp instance, namely lowly, though a very conventional sense in Chinese culture, is not encountered that often in participants’ daily communi-cation. The low frequency of use may keep the instance concerned from being ready to retrieve.

Table 7. A summary of the participants’ first responses in senses of dragon in both groups*

Senses of dragon cued in English (n = 20)

Senses of dragon cued in Chinese (n = 26)


Cp-Enp instances (%) imperial 4 (20.0%) imperial 8 (30.8%)Ep-Cnp instances (%) fierce 9 (45.0%) fierce 9 (34.6%)other Rs upright 1 (5.0%) upright 1 (3.8%)

vicious 0 vicious 4 (15.4%)exotic 2 (10.0%) 0

missing Rs 4 (20.0%) 4 (15.4%)total 20 (100%) 26 (100%)


Table 8. A summary of participants’ first responses to senses of dog in both groups*

Senses of dog cued in English (n = 20)

Senses of dog cued in Chinese (n = 26)


Cp-Enp instances (%) lowly 5 (25.0%) lowly 8 (30.8%)Ep-Cnp instances (%) caring 8 (40.0%) caring 4 (15.4%)other Rs honorable 3 (15.0%) honorable 1 (3.8%)

vibrant 2 (10.0%) vibrant 8 (30.8%)cowardly 2 (10.0%) cowardly 5 (19.2%)

missing Rs 0 0total 20 (100%) 26 (100%)




3. Discussion

The response patterns observed in participants’ recall performance are a reflection of the patterns of the underlying concept organization. In both English-cued and Chinese-cued groups, Chinese participants tended to respond to the given cues with the Cp-Enp instances. This is a strong piece of evidence for the operation of the L1-based patterns of concept categorization in learners’ L2 word learning process. This tendency also indicates that although they reported in the pre-test vocabulary survey that they were familiar with the twelve category labels (i.e. the given cues), most participants only knew these English words at the denotative level. They did not know these English words as well as they thought at the con-notative or cultural level. Given the participants were first-year college students, a question worth pursuing further is whether this observed L1-based prototypicality effect will remain constant or disappear gradually as learners’ L2 proficiency level improves and as their exposure to the cultural differences increases.

Another thing to note is that Chinese participants’ responses to the given cues are far from being exclusively Cp-Enp instances. A good illustration is the percent-age obtained in the senses of dragon category. As previously analyzed, Chinese participants in both groups had no preference for either the given Cp-Enp in-stances or the given Ep-Cnp instances. But, participants did show a strong pref-erence for the prototypical instances, namely both Cp-Enp and Ep-Cnp ones, as opposed to the non-prototypical or atypical instances, namely the other responses. A possible explanation for the above occurrence is that the selected Cp-Enp and Ep-Cnp instances from senses of dragon in this experiment are both psychologi-cally salient in the Chinese participants’ minds. The rapid development of cultural interaction among nations has brought about cultural integration in the whole world. Students in China have had such a wide exposure, via popular English fic-tion as well as Hollywood movies for instance, to the concept of dragon in English culture since they were young that they have acquired simultaneously the English and Chinese concepts of a dragon. It is possible that if not for specific purposes (for example, receiving the specific instruction of rating the prototypicality of the given instances “in your home culture” in Experiment 1), Chinese students will not make the distinction between Chinese senses of 龙 (long) and English senses of dragon. In their minds, the concept DRAGON is a combination of Chinese and English cultures. This combined concept DRAGON hence leads to the equally good recall performance of English words designating the Cp-Enp instances and those designating the Ep-Cnp instances in both groups. One theoretical specu-lation derived from the above analysis is that in those participants’ minds, the connection between the given cues, both in Chinese as龙 (long) and in English as dragon, and the given Ep-Cnp senses is as strong as that between the given cues



and the given Cp-Enp senses. This theoretical speculation implies the possible appearance of the L2-based prototypicality effect in L2 word recall performance as learners’ L2 proficiency and L2 cultural familiarity increases. Admittedly, such a theoretical speculation invites future experimental verification.

An encouraging finding is obtained from data of the English-cued group in the senses of green category. Information was obtained (in the experimenter’s per-sonal conversation with the English teacher of the English-cued group after the experiment) that envious, the given Ep-Cnp instance, was taught to the partici-pants just before the recall task (but after the pre-test English vocabulary survey). The higher percentage of the word envious in the English-cued group can hence be explained by the formal instructions received by the participants. This observation reveals the influence of formal instructions upon participants’ recall performance. L2 learners may add the newly learned, L2-specific sense to the concept underly-ing the two translation equivalents, hence establishing a connection between the newly learned, L2-specific sense and the concept underlying the correspondent L1 word. The remarkable percentage of envious (i.e. the Ep-Cnp instance) in the senses of green category is attributed to the novelty of that connection. It is pos-sible that L2 learners, after adequate encounters with an L2-specific sense, would reconstruct the original L1-based concept underlying the two translation equiva-lents to such an extent that the later-acquired, L2-specific sense is also bestowed a psychologically-salient position. By then, the L2-specific sense becomes a pro-totypical member in the learner’s reconstruction of the concept concerned. Of course, this single phenomenon in the senses of green category is too weak to verify the above speculations. It is also possible that the higher percentage of envi-ous is just a recency effect, i.e. a temporary result of the classroom instruction. In the long run, the sense of envious of the English word green is just attached to the concept categorization underlying the two translation equivalents 绿 (lu) and green in the minds of the participants as an atypical or non-prototypical sense. Further empirical research is needed to address the question of what really hap-pens to the manifestations of the L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 vocabulary system as a learner’s L2 proficiency and L2 cultural familiarity increases.

4. Conclusion

The hypothesis concerning the presence of L1-based prototypicality effects in the learning of L2 words that involve cultural variation in category prototypicality is statistically confirmed.

The first prediction regarding the quantity of L2 words recalled by culture-based prototypicality is verified. English words denoting the Cp-Enp instances



were recollected to a greater extent than those denoting the Ep-Cnp instances. But this manifestation of L1-based prototypicality effect in L2 vocabulary learning is a matter of degree. The effect seems to have the tendency to decrease when learn-ers’ knowledge of English and its culture increases. The reduction of the L1-based prototypicality effect as reflected in the quantity of recalled L2 words by culture-based prototypicality may result from a wide exposure to L2 culture in the natural or classroom settings.

The second prediction concerning the production order of the recalled L2 words by culture-based prototypicality is also confirmed. Upon seeing the given cues, both in Chinese and in English, Chinese participants tended to recall English words denoting the Cp-Enp instances prior to those denoting the Ep-Cnp instances. But this manifestation of L1-based prototypicality effect as measured by the production order of instances by culture-based prototypicality was absent in certain categories. One of the possible explanations for this absence is the integration of the L2 cultural elements into the L1-based patterns of concept organization as a natural outcome of learners’ increasing familiarity with the L2 and its culture.

The consistency in the observation of the two manifestations of L1-based pro-totypicality effect in both Chinese-cued and English-cued groups indicates that on the whole, what underlies learners’ L2 performances is the L1-based patterns of concept categorization. Nevertheless, the two manifestations seem to have the tendency to disappear as learners get more familiar with the L2 as well as its cul-ture. One theoretical speculation proposed to account for the absence of L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 learning is that the effect of the L1-based, prototypical concept salience is not static but dynamic. The increasing exposure to the L2 and its culture will lead to an integration of L2-specific elements into the L1-based patterns of concept categorization and the integration can be reached to such a degree that L2-based prototypical instances gain psychologically salient status in L2 learners’ minds. The ultimate stage of this integration is the emergence of L2-based proto-typicality effect in learners’ L2 vocabulary system. Admittedly, empirical evidence is invited to verify the speculation. If this speculation is confirmed, further ques-tions can be asked, such as whether classroom learners’ L2 represents a gradual progression from L1-based patterns of concept categorization to L2-based patterns of concept categorization, and what variables contribute to the reduction of the L1-based patterns of concept categorization in L2 vocabulary system.

Findings in this study have both theoretical and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, this study, via a Cognitive-Linguistic perspective, provides some insights for the field of bilingualism. It has provided some empirical evidence for the notion of a unitary conceptual system in L2 learners’ minds. The presence of the L1-based patterns of concept categorization in general indicates learners’ resort



to the L1-based conceptual system as a starting point when they approach an L2. The absence of the L1-based patterns of concept categorization in certain catego-ries suggests the modification of the L1-based conceptual system as L2 learners’ language proficiency and cultural familarity increase. Pedagogically, this study pro-vides some answers to the question of what the issues of categorization under the framework of Experientialism (here the prototypicality effect is specified) can offer for the learning of a foreign language. The findings suggest that all the chracteristics pertaining to the L1-based patterns of concept categorization are valuable tools to be used at the very onset of L2 teaching and learning. Specifically, the psychologi-cally salient members of a conceptual category, acquired by L2 learners in their L1 acquisition, should be put to use by textbook compilers and teachers because L2 labels of those concepts are more easily encoded and more quickly retrieved from memory. To help L2 learners gradually reconstruct the L1-based conceptual sys-tem, it may be useful to point out to them which elements are shared by and which elements are different between the conceptual systems underlying the L1 and L2.

References

Anglin, J. M. 1977. Word, Object and Conceptual Development. New York: Norton.Armstrong, Sharon Lee, Lila R. Gleitman, & Henry Gleitman. 1983. What some concepts might

not be. Cognition 13: 263–308. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11: 211–227. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196968Castgeb, Holly Z. & Mark S. Strauss. 2006. Do individuals with autism process categories differ-

ently? The effect of typicality and development. Child Development 77: 1717–1729. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00969.xChrea, Christelle, Dominique Valentin, & Herve Abdi. 2009. Graded structure in odour catego-

ries: A cross-cultural case study. Reception 38: 292–309.De Groot, Annette M. B. 1992. Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual rep-

resentations. In R. Frost & L. Katz, eds., Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning, 389–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62805-8

Ellis, Rod, R. Heimbach, Y. Tanaka, & A. Yamazaki. 1999. Modified input and the acquisition of word meanings by children and adults. In R. Ellis, ed., Learning a Second Language through Interaction, 63–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/sibil.17

Györi, Gábor. 1996. Historical aspects of categorization. In E. H. Casad, ed., Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, 175–206. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kiran, Swathi & Cynthia K. Thompson. 2003. Effects of typicality on online category verification of animate category exemplars in aphasia. Brain and Language 85: 441–450.

DOI: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00064-6Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the

Mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00969.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62805-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sibil.17

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00064-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001



Liu, Kun Kun. 2008. A comparison of color metaphors between Chinese and English cultures. In Q. Feng, ed., Cognitive Linguistics and Rhetoric Studies: 2008 International Symposium, 402–408. Shanghai: Shanghai University Press. [刘坤坤. 2008. 从颜色隐喻探索中英文

化应用区别.《认知语言学与修辞学研究–2008 年国际研讨会论文集》, 402–408. 上海: 上海大学出版社.]

MacWhinney, Brian. 2008. A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cogni-tive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, 341–371. New York & London: Routledge.

Meints, Kerstin, Kim Plunkett, & Paul L. Harris. 1999. When does an ostrich become a bird? The role of typicality in early word comprehension. Developmental Psychology 35: 1072–1078. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.1072

Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158

Onishi, Kristine H., Gregory L. Murphy, & Kathryn Bock. 2008. Prototypicality in sentence production. Cognitive Psychology 56: 103–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.001

Rips, Lance J., Edward J. Shoben, & Edward E. Smith. 1973. Semantic distance and the verifica-tion of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 1–20.

DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8Rosch, Eleanor. 1973a. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E.

Moore, ed., Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.

Rosch, Eleanor. 1973b. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General 104: 192–233. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal struc-

ture of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9Yin, Xiao Mei. 2008. On the meaning change of Chinese and English plant terms: A Cognitive

Linguistic perspective. Journal of Human University of Science and Engineering 29: 162–164. [尹小梅. 2008. 从认知角度探讨英语文化植物词的意义演变方式. 《湖南科技学院学

报》 29: 162–164.]Zhang, Jing Cheng. 2009. On the cultural differences between Chinese and English animal

terms. Journal of Liaoning Medical University: Social Science Edition 7: 103–105. [张景

成. 2009. 从动物词汇看汉英文化背景的差异.《辽宁医学院学报（社会科学版）》 7: 103–105.]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.1072

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9

L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 vocabulary learning.

Documents

Transcript of L1-based prototypicality effects in L2 vocabulary learning.