Cited by 115Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

When pumpkin is closer to onion than to squash: the structure of the second language lexicon

Borodkin, Katy, Kenett, Yoed N., Faust, Miriam, Mashal, Nira·2016·Cognition

Abstract

The current research investigated the organization of the second language mental lexicon. Twenty-seven English-Hebrew bilingual speakers (who spoke Hebrew as their second language) completed a semantic fluency task in each of their languages, and 24 native Hebrew speakers completed the task in Hebrew. Responses were compared within and across groups, using computational tools. The analyses indicated that the lexical network of the second language displayed greater local connectivity and less modular community structure than the network in the native language, both in the entire sample and in a sub-sample of bilinguals whose Hebrew vocabulary was matched to that of the native Hebrew speakers. These findings suggest that the lexical network of the second language is not as well-organized as is the network of the first language, even in highly proficient bilinguals. The structural characteristics of the second language lexicon might be affected by factors related to language learning history, including age of acquisition and language use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.014

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The finding that CSL learners do not reach the target language at P4 is consistent with Borodkin et al. (2016), who found that L2 lexical networks display greater local connectivity and less modular community structure than native language networks, even among proficient bilinguals.

    “This is consistent with Borodkin et al. (2016) who found that L2 lexical networks display greater local connectivity and less modular community structure than the network in the native language, even among proficient bilinguals.”

    From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Borodkin et al. (2016)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borodkin, K., Kenett, Y. N., Faust, M., & Mashal, N.
Affiliations
Bar-Ilan University (IL)
Corresponding author
Borodkin, Katy
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
156
Pages
60-70
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2513814294
Cited by
112
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee
  • The Israel Science Foundation (51/11)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
second language vocabulary, lexical networks, semantic fluency, bilingualism, local connectivity, community structure, age of acquisition, language learning history, Hebrew language
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Semantics, Vocabulary, Multilingualism, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review