Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:08:11.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A neurocognitive perspective on retrieval interference in L2 sentence processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2016

PHILLIP HAMRICK  and
MICHAEL T. ULLMAN
PHILLIP HAMRICK*
Affiliation:
Kent State University
MICHAEL T. ULLMAN
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
Address for correspondence: Phillip Hamrick, Language and Cognition Research Laboratory, Department of English, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cunnings (Cunnings) offers an interpretation of L2-L1 sentence processing differences in terms of memory principles. We applaud such cross-domain approaches, which seem likely to significantly elucidate the neurocognition of language. Cunnings attributes sentence processing differences between (adult) high proficiency L2 and L1 speakers to an increased susceptibility to similarity-based retrieval interference, rather than to qualitative L2-L1 processing differences (cf. Clahsen & Felser, 2006). On his account, both L1 and L2 sentence processing depend upon a ‘bipartite’ working memory, which involves maintaining items active by focusing attention on long-term memory representations (Cowan, 2001).

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 687 - 688
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

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar
Mayes, A., Montaldi, D., & Migo, E. (2007). Associative memory and the medial temporal lobes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (3), 126–135.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M.T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 933–947.Google Scholar
Pothos, E.M. (2005). The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 1–49.Google Scholar
Ullman, M.T. (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 ed.). (pp. 135–158). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ullman, M.T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In Hickok, G. & Small, S. (Eds.), The Neurobiology of Language: Elsevier. pp. 953–968.Google Scholar