INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGES: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP IN PEDAGOGY-RELATED CONTEXTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

27-28 MARCH, 2009

Lexical Functions and Paraphrasing Rules as a Bridge between L1 and L2

Jasmina Milievi Dalhousie University Abstract

Acquisition of lexical and paraphrastic relations enhances production capabilities of language learners, in L1 and L2 alike. This paper explains how the cross-linguistically valid formalisms proposed by MeaningText theory to model these relations, namely, lexical functions and paraphrasing rules, can be used in L2 teaching to help the learner get a better grasp of similarities and differences between L1 and L2 and thus achieve higher accuracy and idiomaticity in L2. A learner-friendly encoding of lexical functions and paraphrasing rules is presented, along with sample exercises intended to help an Anglophone learner of French learn how to use these tools.

1 The Place of L1 and Linguistics in L2 Instruction

To explore the relationship between the first and the second languages (henceforth L1 and L2) in the context of L2 lexicon acquisition and teaching, one may look into ways in which universal,

2 i.e., cross-linguistically valid, formalisms developed by linguistics can be used as a bridge between learners L1 and L2. Due to their universality, these formalisms provide a basis for comparison of the two languages: by highlighting differences and similarities between L1 and L2, they help L2 learner achieve higher accuracy and idiomaticity. This use of linguistic formalisms is similar to Wierzbickas use of semantic primes for cross-cultural semantic analysis (Wierzbicka, 1996). The present proposal is based on two assumptions. First, the use of L1 can be beneficial in L2 instruction (Ringbom, 1978; Sparks et al., 2009). This, of course, is not a new insight: contrastive analysis of, and translation between, L1 and L2 have long been used in L2 instruction to mitigate the effects of negative transfer and enhance the positive one. Second, the use of linguistic concepts and formalisms, adapted to learners needs, can greatly facilitate language acquisition by making it more structured and systematic (Polgure, 2004: 1). While this view has long-standing proponents among linguists (Halliday et al., 1964; Huot, 1981) and, more recently, has been corroborated by research in applied linguistics turning up significant correlations between meta-linguistic abilities of learners (in our terms, knowledge about language, as opposed to knowledge of a language) and their proficiency levels (Elder et al., 1999; Roehr, 2006), it has not yet trickled down to schools and universities at any rate, not in North America, where language classroom is largely off limits for linguistics. This paper will hopefully contribute to making a case for an explicit and systematic use of linguistics in language teaching and learning. We will be looking into two specific formalisms put forward by Meaning-Text linguistic theory, in particular its Explanatory-Combinatorial Lexicology (Meluk et al., 1995): lexical functions, used to model lexical relations (semantic derivations and collocations), and

3 paraphrasing rules, modeling paraphrasing relations (i.e., relations of (near-)synonymy between sentences). It is widely recognized that fluent and idiomatic speech hinges upon Speakers knowledge of lexical relations and his ability to manipulate these relations in order to produce, when necessary, a varied output, i.e. to paraphrase (olkovskij & Meluk, 1967; Russo & Pippa, 2004). It is therefore crucial that lexicon instruction in L2 be focused on the acquisition and active use of these relations. This, in turn, explains the importance of the corresponding formalisms. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the formalisms of lexical functions and paraphrasing rules and proposes learner-friendly versions thereof with intermediate-to-advanced Anglophone learners of French as target audience. Section 3 illustrates the use of these formalisms in language instruction, and Section 4 serves as a conclusion.

2 Universal Linguistic Formalisms for L2 Lexicon Acquisition and Teaching

2.1 Lexical Functions and Paraphrasing Rules: The Linguists Version
2.1.1 Lexical functions Lexical functions [= LFs] (Wanner, ed., 1996) cover both semantic-derivation relations (synonym, antonym, conversive, nominalization, verbalization, result name, actant names, adjectives characterizing actants, etc.) and collocational relations (intensifier, positive evaluator, light verb, realization verb, etc.). A LF link is encoded as shown in (1a); f is the name of LF, lexeme L is the keyword of f, and lexemes {L1, L2, , Ln} are elements of the value (of f for L). The application of an LF the intensifying attribute Magn to an L is illustrated in (1b).
(1) a. f(L)

= {L1, L2, , Ln}

4
b. Magn(amour)

= grand | preposed, fou

Some 60 standard simple LFs form the core of the LF system; they can combine into complex LFs, like the last two LFs in Figure 1 below. These LFs are valid cross-linguistically (their actual applicability depends of course on the available lexical material in each individual language). Examples of the most common standard LFs applied to some English lexemes and their French equivalents follow. Note how widely different the elements of LF values are even in such closely related languages as English and French. Semantic derivations
Syn(WISH) = desire Conv21(FEAR(V)) = frighten S0(STEAL) = theft S1(STEAL) = thief S2(PLUNDER) = loot A1(KNOW) = aware A2(KNOW) = known <familiar> Magn (APPLAUSE) = heavy < thunderous Bon(ANALYSIS) = fruitful Ver(TRUTH) = plain Oper1(DECISION) = make [ART ~] Real2(JOKE) = get [ART ~] AntiMagn(APPLAUSE) = scattered CausOper3(COURSE) = enroll [NZ in ART ~] Syn(DSIR) = souhait Conv21(CRAINDRE) = effrayer S0(VOLER) = vol S1(VOLER) = voleur S2(PILLER) = butin A1(SAVOIR(V)) = _au courant_ A2(SAVOIR(V)) = connu

Collocations
Magn(APPLAUDISSEMENTS) = nourris < frntiques Bon (ANALYSE) = lucide Ver(VRIT) = stricte | antepos. Oper1(DCISION) = prendre [ART ~] Real2(BLAGUE) = comprendre [ART ~] AntiMagn (APPLAUDISSEMENTS) = clairsems, rares CausOper3(COURS) = inscrire [NZ au ~]

Figure 1: Some standard LFs applied to English and French lexemes

The name of an LF encodes the semantic and the syntactic role the LF value plays with respect to the keyword L. Thus, Magn is semantically an intensifier and syntactically an attributive modifier of L, Operi is a semantically empty verb taking L as its main object and the i-th actant of L as it subject, etc. 2.1.2 Paraphrasing rules A paraphrasing rule is an equivalence rule; it specifies a substitution of linguistic material at a given level of representation (semantic, deep-syntactic, etc.) such that it does not (significantly)

5 alter the initial meaning the Speaker intended to convey. There are two major types of paraphrasing rules. Lexical-syntactic paraphrasing rules (olkovskij & Meluk, 1967; Meluk, 1992) operate at the level of deep-syntactic structure; they describe possible lexical substitutions and concomitant syntactic restructurings in a deep-syntactic dependency tree. Since these rules are formulated in terms of lexical functions, they too are universal, i.e., in principle applicable within any language, as well as between languages; thus, they can be used in translation, which can be viewed as interlingual paraphrasing. Two lexical-syntactic paraphrasing rules follow: a synonymic substitution (in a broad sense) and a derivative substitution triggering head switching. For each rule, the illustration of its application is given within English and French and between the two languages. RuleEQUIV.LEX-SYN-1 : L(V) Oper1 II S0(L(V))
(2) a. English ~ English

He fell [= L]. He took [= Oper1] a fall [= S0(L)].

b. French ~ French

Il est tomb [= L]. Il a fait [= Oper1] une chute [= S0(L)].

c. English ~ French

I decided to make [= Oper1] a trip [= S0(L)] to Europe. Jai dcid de voyager [= L] en Europe.

6 RuleEQUIV.LEX-SYN-2 : L1 II L2 L2 ATTR Adv1(L1)

(3) a. English ~ English

The rain contined [= L1] to fall [= L2]. The rain was falling [= L2] still [= Adv1(L1)].
b. French ~ French

La pluie continuait [= L1] tomber [= L2]. La pluie tombait [= L2] toujours [= Adv1(L1)].
c. English ~ French

The crisis caused [= L1] an incrase [= L2] in prices. Les prix ont augment [= L2] suite [= Adv1(L1)] la crise. Semantic paraphrasing rules (Milievi, 2007a: 181-245) operate at the level of semantic representation; essentially, they exploit semantic decompositions ( definitions) and alternative lexicalizations they make possible. For instance, paraphrases (4a) and (4b) are linked via the following rule, which gives the semantic decomposition of the lexeme APPROVE. RuleEQUIV.SEM-1 X approves Zs Y X, who is convinced that Z has done or will do Y, believes (and says) that Y is a right thing to do.
(4) a. I b. I

approve your decision to leave. think that your decision to leave is correct.

Semantic paraphrasing rules are universal, as well, although in a different sense than lexicalsyntactic rules: what makes them universal is the underlying mechanism of semantic decomposition.

2.2 Lexical Functions and Paraphrasing Rules: The Learners Version

2.2.1 Lexical Functions for L2 Learners Two learner-friendly ways of encoding lexical-functional links will be presented. The first way, consists in using as an LF name a literal expressions of its meaning; such an expression, called an LF glose, is in fact the default, or the most neutral, value of the corresponding LF (Polgure, 2000, Popovic, 2003). Thus, a real linguistic expression is used, rather than an artificial name, such as Magn, Oper1, etc. This way of coding is adopted in French monolingual learners dictionaries or dictionary projects based on Explanatory-Combinatorial Lexicology: DiCo (Polgure, 2000), LAF (Meluk & Polgure, 2007) and DA (Milievi & Hamel, 2007); it is illustrated in Figure 2, presenting a fragment of the LF zone in the entry for
CONSEIL#I.1 advice in

the DA dictionary:1
Elements of value

Hard Coding
Oper1

Lexical functions Soft Coding [X] donner un C. give A.

donner give [(ART) ~ NZ],

beaucoup de C. + Oper1 Oper3

fournir fournish, offrir offer [ART ~ NZ] [X] donner beaucoup de C. give prodiguer pour out [ART ~s NZ]
much A.

[Z] recevoir un C. receive some A. [Z] ragir au C. de la faon attendue react to A. in the expected
way

demander ask [(ART) ~ NX] solliciter solicit [ART ~ NX], accepter accept, couter [ART ~] listen to, obir [ ART ~] obey; < suivre follow [ART ~] rejeter reject [ART ~]

Real3

AntiReal3

[Z] ragir au C. contrairement la faon attendue react to A. contrary to

the expected way

Cf. the actantial structure of CONSEIL#I.1: ~ de X Z de faire Y / concernant W advice by X to Z to do Y /

concerning W (e.g., monX conseil JeanZ de partirY my advice to Jean to leave / monX conseil JeanZ
concernant son dpartW. my advice to Jean concerning his departure).

8
Adv1Real3

[Z faire qqch] en suivant un C. [Z sur on [ART ~]

do sth] following A.

Figure 2: six LFs of CONSEIL#I.1 advice in hard and soft coding in the style of Polgure (2000)

The LF glose can be used as a scaffold if the learner cannot recall an element of the value of the LF (which would be more idiomatic). With respect to the hard formalism, this is a more transparent but less general way of encoding lexical relations: often, for a single hard-coded LF, there are several soft-coded ones, as a function of the argument of the LF.2 The second learner-friendly way of coding LFs, more general than (and radically different from) the first one, would consist in keeping artificial names for the LFs while making them more transparent (the problem of encoding the actantial role with verbal functions Oper1 vs. Oper2, etc. would have to be figured out):
FLs describing derivations
Syn Anti Convijkl S0 S1 S2 A1 A2

FLs describing collocations

Magn/AntiMagn Bon/AntiBon Ver/AntiVe Operi Funci Reali IncepOperi FinFunci

Hard coding

Soft coding

Hard coding

Soft coding

Synonym Antonym Conversive Action Name Agent Name Patient Name Agents Characteristics Patients Characteristics

Intensifier/Attenuator SubjectiveEvaluatorPos/Neg ObjectiveEvaluatorPos/Neg SupportVL=principalCO SupportVL=Subjet RealizationVL=principalCO PhaseStartSupportVL=principalCO PhaseEndSupportVL=Subjet

Figure 3: Another possible soft coding of LFs

For the time being, I prefer not to choose between the two possible formalizations. Note, though, that either way learner-friendly encoding of LFs becomes quite involved at some point, and, consequently, that of paraphrasing rules.

Here are some soft LFs taken from the DA database which correspond to the hard LF Magn: intense intense,
grand big, important important, beaucoup much, intensment intensely, de faon marque in a

marked way, etc. Light LFs adapt to the part of speech of their keyword, which is not the case with classical LFs.

9 2.2.2 Paraphrasing Rules for L2 Learners Here again, we have two encoding options, depending on what soft LFs are used (Milievi, 2007b). Two soft versions of the RuleEQUIV.LEX-SYN-1, cited in Section 2.1.2, follow. Soft version-1 Generalizations are possible from the semantic label of a given lexeme (Polgure, 2003). Semantic labels are taxonomic characterizers (object, person, event, act, action, process, etc.) used to describe in an approximate way the meaning of lexemes and semantic type of their actants. A lexeme L inherits from its label its semantic and, to some extent, co-occurrence properties: the Ls with the same semantic label tend to admit the same LFs and to have the same values for these LFs. For instance, the default value for Oper1(Lact) is do or make, that for
Oper1(Lnegative act)

is commit; the value of Oper1(Lfeeling) is feel, that of Oper1(Linformation) is give, etc.

This information can be incorporated into paraphrasing rules. V[X ~ Y]action NX peform <carry out> N action of NY E.g.: (to) analyse perform <carry out> an analysis; (to) experiment perform <carry out> experiments V[X ~ Y]feeling NX feel Nfeeling for NY E.g.: (to) respect (to) feel respect; (to) love (to) feel love

V[X ~ Y Z]information NX give to NZ Ninformation about NY E.g.: (to) advise (to) give a piece of advice; (to) hint (to) give a hint

For a single hard-coded paraphrasing rule, we have several soft rules. This coding technique is limited in two respects. First, not all LFs and not all values of LFs for Ls with the same semantic label coincide; second, not all rules can be rewritten in this way (namely, the more syntactic ones, like the rule RuleEQUIV.LEX-SYN-2, Subsection 2.1.2).

10 Soft version-2 V[X ~ Y] NX support V + NAction.Name(V) + (PREPOSITION) + NY. This notation is more general but less transparent than the one suggested above, just as are the LFs in terms of which the rule is written.

3 Learner-friendly Formalisms in Use: An Illustration

3.1 Lexical functions and paraphrasing rules in a sample entry of a learners dictionary
Below I show how a part of an entry in a learners bilingual English ~ French dictionary could look like, with learner-friendly LFs and paraphrasing rules as used in the DA dictionary.
Xs

Lexical functions
Oper1 = [X] have A. for Y

ATTENTION to Y ATTENTION de X pour Y Element(s) of value accorder, faire, porter [~ NY]

N/A

devote, pay [~ to NY]

Oper2 = [Y] have A. from X

get, receive [~ from NX]

Caus2Func =

[Y] cause A. to be on Y MagnCaus2Func2 = [Y] cause intense A. to be on Y CausOper2 = [someone] cause X to have A. for Y
CausFunc2 =

attract, catch; arrest [~] grab [NsX ~] bring [NY ~ to NsX ~] call, draw [NsX ~]

capturer, retenir [~]

N/A porter [ ART ~ de NX]; SIGNALER3 attirer [~ sur NY]

[someone/sth] cause A. to be on Y Magn+Caus1Func2 = [X] cause Xs intense A. to be on Y Magn = Intense Intense-focused on details
3

N/A

fixer [ART ~ sur NY]

N/A

intense, heavy, heightened; careful, close,

meticulous; minutieuse

Although signaler can be described as a fused value the LF CausOper2 (i.e., a value expressing together the meaning of the LF and its keyword), the equivalence bring Y to Xs attention signaler Y to X has a distinctly semantic feel about it and is thus better described via a semantic paraphrasing rule: see Figure 5.

11
Intense-not shared Intense-continuous

undivided
N/A

N/A

soutenue

Figure 4: LF zone in the entry for ATTENTION in a learners dictionary (fragment)

Paraphrasing rules
Synonymic substitution based on the decomposition of SIGNALER W brings Y to Xs attention W signale Y X Synonymic substitution & addition of Intense [Y] cause intense A. to be on Y [sone/sth] cause A. to be on Y+Intense A. Conversive substition [Y] have A. from X

Exemples

The problem was brought to my attention by Mr. Who. Ce problme ma t signal par M. Untel. This case grabbed the intention of the nation. Ce cas a attir beaucoup dattention partout au pays. She was not getting enough attention from her husband.

[X] have A. for Y Son mari ne lui accordait pas assez dattention. Implicative substitution & addition of Intense (applied from right to left) [X] cause Xs intense A. to be on Y [X] begin to have A. for Y+Intense A. He started paying close attention to this new problem. Il fixa son attention sur ce nouveau problme.

Figure 5: Paraphrasing rules in the entry for ATTENTION in a learners dictionary (fragment)

This lexicographic information can be exploited in various language production tasks: writing, revising, reformulating, abstracting, translating, etc., some of which will be illustrated below.

3.2 Sample exercises with lexical functions and paraphrasing rules

Two exercises with each of the formalisms will be presented. 3.2.1 Exercises with Lexical Functions Exercise-1 Describe the following English collocations in terms of lexical functions and translate them into French. What do you observe?
(5)

eat dinner, cook dinner, make breakfast, ask a question, give a cry, make a gesture

Goals: 1) Familiarize students with a highly idiomatic character of collocations; 2) make them

12 aware of the negative transfer from L1 they are likely to experience with collocations.4 Responses:
[X] ingest L = Real1 [X] get ready to ingest L = PreparReal1 [X] get ready to ingest L = PreparReal1 [X] cause L to exist = CausFunc0 [X] produce L = Oper1 [X] do L = Oper1 eat dinner cook dinner make breakfast ask a question give a cry make a gesture prendre son dner prparer le dner prparer le petit djeuner poser une question pousser un cri poser un geste

Figure 6: Key to Exercise 1

Exercise-2 Supply an element of the value for the LFs in perentheses.

(6)

a. Quelle conclusion peut-on tirer de l _______ (Fact.of = S0(ESSAYER#1)) de ce produit? What conclusion can one draw from the _______ of this product? b. Jai enfin rendez-vous pour le premier _______ (Fact.of = S0(ESSAYER#2)) de ma robe. I finally have an appointment for the first _______ of my dress.

(7)

a. quel _______ (Name.for.W = S4(ACHETER#1)) a-t-il achet#1 cette voiture? Should one pay _______ for a quality perfume? b. Ce cadeau ressemble un _______ (Name.for.W = S4(ACHETER#2)) pour acheter#2 sa patience. This present looks like a _______ to buy his patience.

Goals: 1) Familiarize students with polysemy and the fact that different word-senses of a polysemous word may admit different LFs and have different values for the LFs that they share; 2) make them compare patterns of polysemy in L1 and L2. Responses: (6) essai trial, essayage fitting; (7) prix price, pot-de-vin bribe.
4

Cf. the following data from a learners corpus (Milievi & Hamel, 2007): *manger le dner, *demander une question, *donner un cri., etc.

13 3.2.2 Exercises with Paraphrasing Rules Exercise-1 The following sentence contains problematic lexical material (in bold).5 Formulate the problem and propose a solution.
(8)

Le choix des patins doit recevoir une attention particulire. The choice of skates should receive special attention.

Goal: Enable students to analyze their lexical errors and correct them by using lexical links and paraphrasing rules. Response: In French, LF Oper2 does not have an idiomatic element of value with ATTENTION:
Oper2(ATTENTION)

= ?mriter, ?recevoir. In English, it does: it is, exactly, receive, get

[attention]; cf. Figure 5 above. Here is a possible reformulation:

(9)

Il faut accorder une attention particulire au choix des patins. One should pay special attention to the choice of skates.

It makes use of two paraphrasing rules: a synonymic substitution involving quasi-synonyms

DEVOIRX doit faire Y and FALOIRIl faut que X fasse Y,

and a conversive substitution, cited above, in the entry

for ATTENTION, which allows to pass from ?recevoir ATTENTION [= Oper2] to accorder
ATTENTION

[= Oper1].6

Exercise-2 Translate (10) into French. Cite the paraphrasing rule(s) you used in the process.
5 6

This is an actual sentence, taken from the learners corpus mentioned previously (footnote 4). Among many other possible reformulations that I cannot describe due to lack of space, one can cite Les patins doivent tre choisis avec (beaucop de) soin Skates should be chosen with (a lot of) care and Le choix des patins est particulirment important The choice of skates is especially important.

14
(10) This

kind of involvement benefits the society as a whole.

Goal: Make student aware of mismatches between L2 and L1 and show them how paraphrasing rules can help them get around the problem. A possible response:
(11) Ce

genre dengagement est bnfique pour lensemble de la socit.

This kind of involvement is beneficial for the society as a whole. English (to) benefit and French bnficier are conversives: X benefits Y vs. Fr. Y bnficie de X [*X bnficie Y]; plus, the English verb is transitive while the French one is not. The substitution would change the sentence information structure too radically (by putting socit in the role of Theme). A possible reformulation that will preserve the information structure makes use of the adjective for X: X is beneficial for Y X est bnfique pour Y (this is the A1 of the English verb, but the A2 of the French one). This reformulation uses two rules: a synonymic substitution relating a verb with the adjective denoting the verbs Agent characteristics, and a conversion rule relating this adjective with the one denoting the verbs Patient characteristics: V[X ~ Y] NX is + AdjAgents Charateristics(V) + PREPOSITION + NY; Conversive(AdjAgents Characteristics) = AdjPatientss Characteristics7

4 Conclusion
In lieu of conclusion, I will sum up the main points of the paper. Language students, in particular students of L2, need to be systematically taught lexical and paraphrastic relations as a way of enhancing their production skills. This requires introducing some formalization into language instruction, borrowed from linguistics but adapted to suit the
7

Cf. the hard coding: L(V) Oper1IIA1(L(V)) and Conv21(A1) = A2.

15 specific needs of language learners. Thanks to their universality, linguistic formalisms allow the learner to compare in an informed way his L2 and L1, which can ultimately ease the complex task of lexicon acquisition. Advanced L2 learners need to acquire quite a lot of linguistic concepts. In order to grasp the notion of LF, for instance, however it is presented to them, they need to be familiar at least with the notions of lexical unit, semantic and syntactic actant, free and set phrase. Thus, we need to offer them support, in form of tutorials and exercises.

Acknowledgment
Many thanks to Igor Meluk and Alain Polgure for commenting on a previous version of this paper.

References
Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., & Davies, A. (1999). Metalinguistic Knowledge: How Important Is It in Studying a Language at University? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22-1: 81-95. Halliday MAK, McIntosh, M., & Stevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman. Huot, E. (1981). Enseignement du franais et linguistique. Paris: Armand Colin. Meluk, I. (1992). Paraphrase et lexique: la thorie Sens-Texte et le Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire. In: Meluk, I. et al., Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du franais contemporain. Recherches lexico-smantiques III. Montral: Les Presses de lUniversit de Montral; pp. 9-58. Meluk, I., Clas, A., & Polgure, A. (1995). Introduction la lexicologie explicative et

16 combinatoire. Leuvin-la-neuve: Duculot. Meluk, I., & Polgure, A. (2007). Lexique actif du franais. Lapprentissage du vocabulaire fond sur 20.000 drivations smantiques et collocations du franais. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Milievi, J. (2007a). La paraphrase. Modlisation de la paraphrase langagire. Bern: Peter Lang. Milievi, J. (2007b). Paraphrase as a tool for achieving lexical competence in L2. Proceedings of the Symposium Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language Use, Learning and Teaching, Brussels, March 29-30, 2007. Brussels: Royal Belgium Academy of Science; 124-134. Milievi, J., & Hamel, M.-J. (2007). Un dictionnaire de reformulation pour les apprenants du franais langue seconde. Revue de lUniversit de Moncton, Numro hors srie 2007; 145 167. Polgure, A. (2000). Une base de donnes lexicales du franais et ses applications possibles en didactique. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues 21: 75-97. Polgure, A. (2003). tiquetage smantique des lexies dans la base de donnes DiCo. Traitement Automatique des Langues 44-2: 39-68. Polgure, A. (2004). La paraphrase comme outil pdagogique de modlisation des liens lexicaux. In: Calaque, E. & J. David, rds, Didactique du lexique : contextes, dmarches, supports. Bruxelles: De Boeck; 115-125. Popovic, S. (2003). Paraphrasage des liens de fonctions lexicales [mmoire de matrise]. Montral: Universit de Montral. Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Roehr, K. (2006). Metalinguistic Knowledge and Language-analytic Ability in University-level

17 L2 Learners. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 51: 41-71. Russo, M., & Pippa, S. (2004). Aptitude to Interpreting: Preliminary Results of a Testing Methodology Based on Paraphrase. META 49/2: 409-432. Sparks, R., Patton, H, Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-Term Crosslinguistic Transfer of Skills From L1 to L2. Language Learning 59-1: 203-243. Wanner, L. (1996). Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics, Primes and Universals. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. olkovskij, A., & Meluk, I. (1967). O semantieskom sinteze. Problemy kibernetiki 19: 177238.