Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:08:54.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility to interference: underlying mechanisms, and implications for prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2016

EDITH KAAN
EDITH KAAN*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Edith Kaan, University of Florida, Linguistics, Box 115454 Gainesville, Florida, United StatesFl 32611, kaan@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the years, models proposed for second-language (L2) processing have been remarkably parallel to those proposed for Broca's aphasia. Differences between agrammatic and unaffected language processing have been explained, e.g., in terms of lack of detailed syntactic structure building (Grodzinsky, 1995), resource deficits (Haarman, Just & Carpenter, 1997), slow syntactic processing (Burkhardt, Avrutin, Piñango & Ruigendijk, 2008), or slowed lexical access (Love, Swinney, Walenski & Zurif, 2008). Each of these approaches have their homolog in L2 processing (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006; McDonald, 2006; Dekydtspotter, Schwartz & Sprouse, 2006; Hopp, 2013, respectively). It is therefore not surprising that Cunnings's proposal (Cunnings, 2016) parallels another idea in aphasia and aging research, namely that deviations from healthy young adult monolingual sentence processing can be attributed to an increased susceptibility to interference (e.g., Sheppard, Walenski, Love & Shapiro, 2015).

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 696 - 697
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

Burkhardt, P., Avrutin, S., Piñango, M. M., & Ruigendijk, E. (2008). Slower-than-normal syntactic processing in agrammatic Broca's aphasia: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 120–137.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Momma, S., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2016). Prediction as memory retrieval: Timing and mechanisms. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 617–627.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. Paper presented at the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006).Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. (1995). A restrictive theory of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language, 50, 27–51.Google Scholar
Haarman, H. J., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1997). Aphasic sentence comprehension as a resource deficit: A computational approach. Brain and Language, 59, 76–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. (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: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Love, T., Swinney, D., Walenski, M., & Zurif, E. (2008). How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language, 107, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, J. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. E., Grüter, T., & Borovsky, A. (2015). Anticipatory and locally coherent lexical activation varies as a function of language proficiency. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 1865–1870.Google 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 & Hearing Research, 58, 781–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed