Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T05:34:01.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 Proficiency matters in comparative L1/L2 processing research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2016

GREGORY D. KEATING
GREGORY D. KEATING*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
*
Address for correspondence: Gregory D. Keating, Department of Linguistics and Asian/Middle Eastern Languages, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182gkeating@mail.sdsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Grammatical processing in a second language (L2) that is learned in adulthood has been shown to differ from processing in a first/native language (L1). Clahsen and Felser's (2006) landmark article provided the first comprehensive account of these differences. According to their shallow structure hypothesis (SSH), L2 learners, unlike L1 speakers, do not compute abstract, hierarchical representations during online sentence comprehension; instead, they rely on lexical, semantic, and pragmatic information to build ‘good enough’ representations. However, native-like processing is attainable – with sufficient L2 proficiency – for word-level processing and morphosyntactic feature processing between locally related words. Clahsen and Felser's article spurred a prolific volume of research over the last decade. Some findings support the SSH, whereas others favor the competing claim that L1/L2 differences result from capacity-based limitations.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 700 - 701
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2016). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675, Published online by Cambridge University Press, June 20, 2016.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2010). The effects of linear distance and working memory on the processing of gender agreement in Spanish. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, H., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.Google Scholar
Pan, H., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, S. M., Walenski, M., Love, T., & Shapiro, L. P. (2015). The auditory comprehension of Wh-questions in aphasia: support for the intervener hypothesis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 781–797.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., & Johns, C. L. (2012). Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 193–211.Google Scholar