Cited by 637Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and Disorders

The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment

Open access
KROLL, JUDITH F., VAN HELL, JANET G., TOKOWICZ, NATASHA, GREEN, DAVID W.·2010·Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

Abstract

Brysbaert and Duyck (this issue) suggest that it is time to abandon the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll and Stewart, 1994) in favor of connectionist models such as BIA+ (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002) that more accurately account for the recent evidence on non-selective access in bilingual word recognition. In this brief response, we first review the history of the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM), consider the set of issues that it was proposed to address and then evaluate the evidence that supports and fails to support the initial claims of the model. Although fifteen years of new research findings require a number of revisions to the RHM, we argue that the central issues to which the model was addressed, the way in which new lexical forms are mapped to meaning and the consequence of language learning history for lexical processing, cannot be accounted for solely within models of word recognition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s136672891000009x

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 integrity of language abilities in the untreated language facilitates cross-language generalization (CLG) via shared conceptual representations.

    “Our results, on the other hand, align with a parsimonious interpretation of language processing in bilingual aphasia: the integrity of language abilities in the untreated language facilitate CLG via shared conceptual representations53,54.”

    From Machine Learning Predictions of Recovery in Bilingual Poststroke Aphasia: Aligning Insights With Clinical Evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [53]

    The section “On the nature of the semantics” (page not provided) says the Revised Hierarchical Model assumes a shared conceptual system across a bilingual’s two languages. It does not establish that intact abilities in an untreated language facilitate cross-language generalization in bilingual aphasia; the search for aphasia, treatment, and transfer yielded no passage making that link. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Kroll JF Sunderman G Doughty C Long M Cognitive processes in second language acquisition: The development of lexical and conceptual representations Handbook of second language acquisition 2003 104 129 Blackwell Publishers Cambridge, MA
  2. Kroll JF Tokowicz N Kroll JF De Groot AMB Models of bilingual representation and processing Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches 2005 531 553 Oxford University Press New York
  3. La Heij W Hooglander A Kerling R Van der Velden E Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward translation: Evidence for concept mediation Journal of Memory and Language 1996 35 648 665
  4. Li P Farkas I MacWhinney B Early lexical acquisition in a self-organizing neural network Neural Networks 2004 17 1345 1362 15555870
  5. Segalowitz N Hulstijn J Kroll JF De Groot AMB Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches 2005 371 388 Oxford University Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KROLL, J. F., VAN HELL, J. G., TOKOWICZ, N., & GREEN, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
KROLL, JUDITH F.
Venue
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Published
2010-06-09
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
373-381
ISSN
  • 1366-7289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1841
OpenAlex
W1992782979
Cited by
637
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 27
FWCI
43.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bilingualism Language and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD053146)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
Revised Hierarchical Model, bilingual word recognition, connectionist models, BIA+ model, lexical access, language learning history, bilingualism

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