Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T07:34:36.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the role of discourse-level information in second-language sentence processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

ELSI KAISER
ELSI KAISER*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California
*
Address for correspondence: Elsi Kaiser, Department of Linguistics, 3601 Watt Way, GFS 301, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089–1693, USA, emkaiser@usc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Based on a detailed review of existing studies of high-proficiency second-language (L2) learners who acquired the L2 in adolescence/adulthood, Cunnings (Cunnings, 2016) argues that Sorace's (2011) Interface Hypothesis (IH) and Clahsen and Felser's (2006) Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) do not explain the existing data as well as his memory-based approach which posits that memory-retrieval processes in the L1 and L2 do not pattern alike. Cunnings proposes that L1 and L2 processing differ in terms of comprehenders’ ability to retrieve from memory information constructed during sentence processing. He concludes that L2 processing is more susceptible to interference effects during retrieval, and, most relevantly for this commentary, that discourse-based cues to memory retrieval are more heavily weighted in L2 than L1 processing.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 698 - 699
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2016). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (to appear/2017; online 2013). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus, Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J.C. (2008) Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (5), 709–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E., Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2009). Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schumacher, P., Roberts, L., & Järvikivi, J. (in press). Agentivity drives real-time pronoun resolution: Evidence from German er and der. In press for Lingua.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar