The Organization of the Senses of Polysemy in Japanese EFL Learners’ Mental Lexicon
- 1 Department of Teacher Education, Shumei University, Yachiyo, Japan
- 2 Department of Education, Tohoku Fukushi University, Sendai, Japan
Abstract
The structure of the mental lexicon has been widely researched, but few studies focusing on polysemy have been conducted, even in an L1 (a learner’s first language) context, and almost no research has been conducted in an L2 (a learner’s second language) context. The current study aims to scrutinize how the different vocabulary size groups of Japanese EFL learners classify the various senses of basic polysemous words and to compare their categorization with sense classification based on a linguistic dictionary. The results indicated that those with an estimated vocabulary size consisting of 5500 words or over (hereafter, the upper group) classified senses in a more similar way to the dictionary than those whose vocabulary size comprised 5000 or fewer words (hereafter, the lower group). This was despite the fact that they both understood the target context well and the number of categorizations created was almost the same between the two groups. Moreover, the upper group tended to classify the senses of polysemy in a more similar way to the other participants in the same vocabulary group, while the lower group’s categorization was more divergent and less well-organized. These findings indicated that even though the participants understood each sense, the difference appeared in the ability to categorize the senses, suggesting that grouping the senses needs knowledge different from simply understanding them, and this knowledge is not yet fully developed even for basic words.
- Aitchison, J. (2003). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. UK: Blackwell.
- Azuma, T., & van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE Is Better than FAST: The Relatedness of a Word’s Meanings Affects Lexical Decision Times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484-504. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2502
- Brown, S. W. (2008). Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 21, 1-12. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.518.1533&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. G. (1975). A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
- Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 82, 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1
- Foraker, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2012). Polysemy in Sentence Comprehension: Effects of Meaning Dominance. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 407-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.010
- Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on Semantic Commitments: Processing Multiple Meanings vs. Multiple Senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7
- Hoshino, Y. (2016). Which Meanings of Basic Words Appear in English Reading Tests with Various Difficulties?—Focusing on Polysemy. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 27, 33-48. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.27.0_33
- Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical Representation and Development in a Second Language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.47
- Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518
- Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making Sense of Word Senses: The Comprehension of Polysemy Depends on Sense Overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534-1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013012
- Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524
- Lin, C., & Ahrens, K. (2010). Ambiguity Advantage Revisited: Two Meanings Are Better than One When Accessing Chinese Nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9120-8