A Comparison Study on Word Association Between English Native Speakers and Chinese English Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to make a comparison study between word association of native speakers and that of Chinese English learners (CELs). Through data analysis of the word association results, the nature of the second language (L2) mental lexicon is explored. A continuous free word association test (WAT) was conducted to 150 students from Dalian University of Technology (DUT). And the Minnesota word association norms are selected as a native speakers’ word association test for the comparison. The results of WATs are classified and analyzed with respect to response type and part of speech.The major findings in the paper are as follows： (1) The words in L2 mental lexicon are essentially semantically-related, just like the mental lexicon of L1 speakers. But phonological relation plays a more important role in L2 mental lexicon than in L1 mental lexicon.(2) Nouns are easy to be activated for both native speakers and L2 learners. And responses of the same part of speech as the stimulus word are easier to be activated.(3) Difference in culture and limitation of language competence may cause the different word association of natives and L2 learners. And L2 learners’ native language is likely to have influence on their L2 mental lexicon. Keywords: mental lexicon; word association; Chinese English learnersResume: Le document vise a faire une etude comparative entre l'association de mots entre les locuteurs de langue maternelle anglaise et les apprenants chinois de l'anglais (ACA). Grâce a l'analyse des donnees des resultats d'association de mots, la nature de lexique mental de la deuxieme langue (L2) est exploree. Un test continu de l'association de mots libre (TAM) a ete realisee chez 150 etudiants de l'Universite de Technologie de Dalian (UTD). Et les normes d'association de mots de Minnesota sont selectionnee comme un test d'association de mots chez les locuteurs natifs pour faire la comparaison. Les resultats de TAM sont classes et analyses en fonction du type de reponse et de la partie du discours.Les conclusions principales de cet article sont les suivantes:(1) Les mots dans le lexique mental L2 sont semantiquement lies, tout comme le lexique mental des locuteurs de L1. Mais les relations phonologiques jouent un role plus important dans le lexique mental L2 que dans le lexique mental L1 .(2) Les noms sont faciles a etre actives pour les locuteurs natifs et les apprenants de L2. Et les reponses de la meme partie du discours en tant que le mot de stimulus sont plus faciles a activer.(3) La difference de culture et la limitation de la competence linguistique peuvent causer une association de mots differente des autochtones et des apprenants de L2. Et la langue maternelle des apprenants de L2 est susceptible d'avoir une influence sur leur lexique mental L2.Mots-cles: lexique mental; association de mots; apprenants chinois de l'anglais
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".