Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T19:31:03.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuity and shallow structures in language processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

HARALD CLAHSEN  and
CLAUDIA FELSER
HARALD CLAHSEN
Affiliation:
University of Essex
CLAUDIA FELSER
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The core idea that we argued for in the target article was that grammatical processing in a second language (L2) is fundamentally different from grammatical processing in one's native (first) language (L1). Our major source of evidence for this claim comes from experimental psycholinguistic studies investigating morphological and syntactic processing in child and adult native speakers, and nonnative speakers who acquired their L2 after childhood and for whom their L1 is the dominant language. With respect to child L1 processing, we argued for a continuity of parsing hypothesis claiming that the child's structural parser is basically the same as that of mature speakers and does not change over time. Adult L2 learners, in contrast, were seen to underuse syntactic information during sentence processing and to rely more on lexical–semantic cues to interpretation. To account for the observed L1/L2 differences in processing, we proposed the shallow structure hypothesis (SSH) according to which the representations adult L2 learners compute during processing contain less syntactic detail than those of child and adult native speakers.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 107 - 126
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bartke S. 1998. Experimentelle Studien zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Bates E., & MacWhinney B. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3– 73). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bates E., MacWhinney B., Caselli C., Devescovi A., Natale F., & Venza V. 1984. A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341– 354.Google Scholar
Beck M.-L. 1997. Regular verbs, past tense and frequency: Tracking down a potential source of NS/NNS competence differences. Second Language Research, 13, 93– 115.Google Scholar
Berko J. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150– 177.Google Scholar
Bever T. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279– 352). New York: Wiley.
Bley-Vroman R. 1990. The logical problem of second language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3– 49.Google Scholar
Chomsky N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christianson K., Hollingworth A., Halliwell J., & Ferreira F. 2001. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368– 407.Google Scholar
Clahsen H., Hadler M., & Weyerts H. 2004. Speeded production of inflected words in children and adults. Journal of Child Language, 31, 683– 712.Google Scholar
Clahsen H., Marcus G., Bartke S., & Wiese R. 1996. Compounding and inflection in German child language. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995 (pp. 115– 142). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Clahsen H., & Muysken P. 1986. The accessibility of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93– 119.Google Scholar
Clahsen H., & Muysken P. 1989. The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1– 29.Google Scholar
Clahsen H., Rothweiler M., Woest A., & Marcus G. 1992. Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition, 45, 225– 255.Google Scholar
Cook V. 2003. Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crain S., & Fodor J. D. 1985. How can grammars help parsers? In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94– 128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crain S., & Wexler K. 1999. Methodology in the study of language acquisition: A modular approach. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 387– 425). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
De Vincenzi M., & Job R. 1993. Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189– 206.Google Scholar
Epstein S., Flynn S., & Martohardjono G. 1996. Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 677– 714.Google Scholar
Felser C., & Roberts L. 2005. Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Felser C., Roberts L., Gross R., & Marinis T. 2003. The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453– 489.Google Scholar
Ferreira F. 2003. The misinterpretation of non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164– 203.Google Scholar
Ferreira F., Bailey K., & Ferraro V. 2002. Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11– 15.Google Scholar
Fodor J. D. 1998a. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285– 319.Google Scholar
Fodor J. D. 1998b. Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 339– 374.Google Scholar
Fodor J. D. 1999. Triggers for parsing with. In E. Klein & G. Martohardjano (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 373– 406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foucart A., & Frenck-Mestre C. 2004, September. Processing of grammatical gender information in French as first and second language. Poster presented at AMLaP, Aix-en-Provence.
Frazier L. 1987. Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519– 559.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre C. 2005. Eye-movement recording as tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175– 198.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre C., & Pynte J. 1997. Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119– 148.Google Scholar
Gawlitzek-Maiwald I. 1994. How do children cope with variation in the input? The case of German plural and compounding. In R. Tracy & E. Lattey (Eds.), How tolerant is universal grammar? Essays on language learnability and language variation (pp. 225– 266). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Gibson E., Pearlmutter N., Canseco-Gonzalez E., & Hickock G. 1996. Recency preferences in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23– 59.Google Scholar
Gibson E., Pearlmutter N., & Torrens V. 1999. Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish. Memory & Cognition, 27, 603– 611.Google Scholar
Gibson E., & Wexler K. 1994. Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 407– 454.Google Scholar
Gillon-Dowens M., Barber H., Vergara M., & Carreiras M. 2004, September. Does practice make perfect? An ERP study of morphosyntactic processing in highly proficient English–Spanish late bilinguals. Poster presented at AMLaP, Aix-en-Provence.
Golato P. 2002. Word parsing by late-learning French–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 417– 446.Google Scholar
Hahne A., Müller J., & Clahsen H. 2006. Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioral and ERP evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18.Google Scholar
Hammerton J., Osborne M., Armstrong S., & Daelemans W. 2002. Introduction to special issue on machine learning: Approaches to shallow parsing. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2, 551– 558.Google Scholar
Jiang N. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603– 634.Google Scholar
Juffs A. 1998. Some effects of first language argument structure and syntax on second language processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406– 424.Google Scholar
Juffs A. 2001. Psycholinguistically-oriented L2 research. In M. McGroarty (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Juffs A. 2004. Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199– 225.Google Scholar
Juffs A. 2005. The influence of first language on the processing of wh- movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121– 151.Google Scholar
Long M., & Robinson P. 1998. Focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15– 41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Love T., Maas E., & Swinney D. 2003. The influence of language exposure on lexical and syntactic language processing. Experimental Psychology, 50, 204– 216.Google Scholar
Lück M., Hahne A., Friederici A., & Clahsen H. 2001, November. Developing brain potentials in children: An ERP study of German noun plurals. Paper presented at 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development.
MacWhinney B. 1997. Second language acquisition and the competition model. In A. De Groot & J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113– 142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marinis T., Roberts L., Felser C., & Clahsen H. 2005. Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53– 78.Google Scholar
Mueller J. 2005. Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research, 21, 152– 174.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou D., & Clahsen H. 2003. Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501– 528.Google Scholar
Paradis M. 2004. A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Phillips C. 1996. Order and structure. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.
Phillips C. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 37– 90.Google Scholar
Pinker S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pinker S. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.
Roberts L. 2003. Syntactic processing in learners of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Colchester. University of Essex,
Roberts L., Marinis T., Felser C., & Clahsen H. 2006. Antecedent priming at gap positions in children's sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35.Google Scholar
Sabourin L. 2003. Grammatical gender and second language processing: An ERP study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Sanford A., & Sturt P. 2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 382– 386.Google Scholar
Sato M., & Felser C. 2005, May. Sensitivity to different types of information in L2 sentence processing: Evidence from speeded grammaticality judgements. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan Second Language Association.
Schlesewsky M., & Bornkessel I. 2004. On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension. Lingua, 114, 1213– 1234.Google Scholar
Schöler H., & Kany W. 1989. Lernprozesse beim Erwerb von Flexionsmorphemen: Ein Vergleich sprachbehinderter mit sprachunauffälligen Kindern am Beispiel der Pluralmarkierung (Untersuchung I und II). In G. Kegel (Ed.), Sprechwissenschaft & Psycholinguistik 3. Beiträge aus Forschung und Praxis (pp. 123– 176). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Slobin D. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175– 208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Tokowicz N., & MacWhinney B. 2005. Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173– 204.Google Scholar
Townsend D., & Bever T. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Truscott J., & Sharwood Smith M. 2004. Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1– 20.Google Scholar
Ullman M. 2001. The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105– 122.Google Scholar
Ullman M. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231– 270.Google Scholar
VanPatten B. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction. Chestnut Hill, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten B. 2004. Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5– 31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson D., & Gibson E. 2002, March. When does prosody influence parsing? Poster presented at the 15th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
Weber-Fox C., & Neville H. 2001. Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open- and closed-class words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44, 1338– 1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg A. 1999. A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 283– 315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Williams J. 1995. Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, 7, 6– 11.Google Scholar