Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-05T08:22:03.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual differences in L2 parsing and lexical representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

HOLGER HOPP
HOLGER HOPP*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig
*
Address for correspondence: Holger Hopp, English and American Studies, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Bienroder Weg 80, 38106 Braunschweig, Germanyh.hopp@tu-bs.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an impressive review of recent research on the L2 processing of syntactic and anaphoric dependencies and ambiguities, Cunnings (Cunnings) convincingly demonstrates that the evidence from studies conducted within the last decade is not compatible with the Shallow Structures Hypothesis (SSH) which posits that L2 readers engage in structurally less detailed parses than native speakers. He also concludes that invoking capacity limitations in working memory in L2 learners cannot account for the full range of findings. Instead, he puts forth a novel approach to non-native processing in the context of cue-based models of memory retrieval. Cunnings assumes (i) L2 learners are more susceptible to interference, and (ii) L2 learners weight retrieval cues differently from native speakers.

Information

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 689 - 690
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cunnings, I. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787–814.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in L2 sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000569. Published online: 25 November 2015.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2016). Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in adult L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 32, 277–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. doi: 10.1075/lab.14027.hop. Published online 4 February 2016.Google Scholar
Miller, K.A. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh-dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1146, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyke, J., Johns, C., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131, 373–403.Google Scholar