Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:25:55.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference in Native and Non-Native Sentence Processing*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

IAN CUNNINGS Open the ORCID record for IAN CUNNINGS [Opens in a new window]
IAN CUNNINGS*
Affiliation:
University of Reading, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Ian Cunnings, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK, RG6 7BE[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The primary aim of my target article was to demonstrate how careful consideration of the working memory operations that underlie successful language comprehension is crucial to our understanding of the similarities and differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing. My central claims were that highly proficient L2 speakers construct similarly specified syntactic parses as L1 speakers, and that differences between L1 and L2 processing can be characterised in terms of L2 speakers being more prone to interference during memory retrieval operations. In explaining L1/L2 differences in this way, I argued a primary source of differences between L1 and L2 processing lies in how different populations of speakers weight cues that guide memory retrieval.

Type
Author's response
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 712 - 721
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank the commentators for their in-depth discussion of the target article. It was impossible to fully do justice to all the comments that were made. I would also like to thank the editor for helpful comments on both the keynote article and my response.

References

Alcocer, P., and Phillips, C. (2012). Using relational syntactic constrains in content-addressable memory architectures for sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis during sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405–430.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 748–769.Google Scholar
Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The application of binding constraints by Japanese L2 learners of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Boxell, O., & Felser, C. (2016). Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chow, W-Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 630. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00630 Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., & Sato, M. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2016). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Felser, C. (2014). Plausibility and filled gap effects in native and non-native sentence processing. Poster presented at AMLaP 2014, University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Fotiadou, G., & Tsimpli, I. (2016). Anaphora resolution and reanalysis during L2 sentence processing: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000292 Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, (2015). Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye-movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 840. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00840 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunnings, I., & Sturt, P. (2014). Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
Dillon, B. A. short discourse on reflexives: A reply to Cunnings (2016). Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000973 Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusions profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modelling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P., Beatty-Martínez, A., & Perrotti, L. Susceptibility to interference affects the second and the first language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, I., Valdés, Kroff, J., Guzzardo, Tamargo, R., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–3887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 67–98.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The on-line application of Binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. L2 processing as noisy channel language comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001061 Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 8051–8056.Google Scholar
Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Covey, L. Understanding the symptoms and sources of variability in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, J. (2016). The acquisition of adjunct control: Grammar and processing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during sentence processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425–430.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Ullman, M. A neurocognitive perspective on retrieval interference in L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S136672891600081X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). Working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. Individual differences in L2 parsing and lexical representations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2011). Immediate syntactic ambiguity resolution in the L2: An eyetracking study. Talk presented at the 8th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Oslo, Norway.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. (2016a). The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 1253–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2016b). Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in adult L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 32, 277–307.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 907–925.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., Lago, S., & Patterson, C. L2 processing and memory retrieval: Some empirical and conceptual challenges. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2016). Number attraction effects in near-native Spanish sentence comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 5–33.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. Construct operationalization, L1 effects, and context in second language processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000900 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. Susceptibility to interference: Underlying mechanisms, and implications for prediction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. On the role of discourse-level information in second-language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001012 Google Scholar
Keating, G. L2 proficiency matters in comparative L1/L2 processing research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000912 Google Scholar
Kush, D. (2013). Respecting relations: Memory access and antecedent retrieval in incremental sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kush, D. Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variables pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 18–40.Google Scholar
Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., & Van, Dyke, J. (2006). Computation principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, L., & Christianson, K. (2015). Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1283–1315.Google Scholar
Malko, A., Ehrenhofer, L., & Phillips, C. Theories and frameworks in second language processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001000 Google Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Tanner, D. Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S136672891600095X Google Scholar
Omaki, A. Linking learning and parsing in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, H., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2016). Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 329. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00329 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlmutter, N., Garnsey, S., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015a). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015b). Learning obscure and obvious properties of language. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 545–555.Google Scholar
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual world study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 636–643.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Constraints on variables in syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, G. (2008). Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different?. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, USA.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slattery, T., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2012) Electrophysiological markers of interference and structural facilitation in native and nonnative agreement processing. In Biller, A., Chung, A., & Kimball, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 594–606. Somerville: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Tily, H., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2010). The time-course of lexical and structural processes in sentence comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 910–927.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Coughlin, C. Cue-weighting mechanism and bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001036 Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. (2007). Interference effects from grammaticality unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 407–430.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Gompel, R., Pickering, M., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284–307.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. Sources of variability in linguistic memory systems. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar