Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T04:10:01.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sentence Processing by L2 Learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Susan Gass
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan

Extract

This paper presents the results of an experiment which investigated the syntactic parsing strategies used by L2 learners at different stages of acquisition. This represents a shift in emphasis from most studies in the field of language learning which deal almost exclusively with production data. The goal of acquisition studies is to understand both the nature of the linguistic system that a learner has acquired and the processes involved in the acquisition of that system. This linguistic knowledge is generally inferred from the perceptive or productive behavior of the learner. There are several reasons why production has been emphasized over perception in second language acquisition research: 1) Research in this area has been greatly affected by studies on child language acquisition in which traditional perception experiments are inappropriate due to a child's lack of cognitive maturity and verbal abilities. 2) Many perception experiments require a paraphrasing ability beyond that of L2 learners in the early stages of acquisition. 3) Problems involving production are more apparent in most pedagogical encounters and, therefore, are of more immediate concern to researchers. Yet, the investigation of perceptual strategies of L2 learners is important, if only because it affords us the possibility of viewing a different corpus of L2 data, thereby giving us additional insight into the nature of the acquisition process.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

REFERENCES

Abrams, K., and Bever, T.. 1969. Syntactic structure modifies attention during speech perception and recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 21. 280–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bever, T.; Lackner, J.; and Kirk, R.. 1969. The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing. Perception and Psychophysics. 5. 225321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., and Bever, T.. 1965. The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior. 4. 414–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J., and Garrett, M.. 1974. The psychology of language: an introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. 1976. What we listen for. Paper presented at the 90th meeting of the ASA.San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Holmes, V. 1970. Some effects of syntactic structure on sentence recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Holmes, V., and Forster, K.. 1970. Detection of extraneous signals during sentence recognition. Perception and Psychophysics. 7. 297301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P., and Broadbent, D.. 1960. Perception of sequence in auditory events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 12. 162–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A., and Anderson, J.. 1970. The perception of clicks in linguistic and nonlinguistic messages. Perception and Psychophysics. 8. 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieger, C. 1976. The representation and selection of common sense knowledge for natural language comprehension. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics; semantics: theory and application, ed. by Rameh, C., 145–71. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Shayne, J., and Gass, S.. 1976. An investigation of the role of stress as a factor in speech perception. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics. 31. 7885.Google Scholar