Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:57:22.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

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]

Abstract

A growing body of research has investigated bilingual sentence processing. How to account for differences in native (L1) and non-native (L2) processing is controversial. Some explain L1/L2 differences in terms of different parsing mechanisms, and the hypothesis that L2 learners adopt ‘shallow’ parsing has received considerable attention. Others assume L1/L2 processing is similar, and explain L1/L2 differences in terms of capacity-based limitations being exceeded during L2 processing. More generally, the role that working memory plays in language acquisition and processing has garnered increasing interest. Based on research investigating L2 sentence processing, I claim that a primary source of L1/L2 differences lies in the ability to retrieve information constructed during sentence processing from memory. In contrast to describing L1/L2 differences in terms of shallow parsing or capacity limitations, I argue that L2 speakers are more susceptible to retrieval interference when successful comprehension requires access to information from memory.

Keywords

second language acquisitionbilingualismsentence processingworking memory
Type
Keynote Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 659 - 678
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

Aldwayan, S., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2010). Evidence of syntactic constraints in the processing of wh-movement: A study of Najdi Arabic learners of English. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (eds.). Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing, pp. 65–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alemán-Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1-L2 similarity and structural distance. Second Language Research, 30, 275–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. (ed.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation; Advances in Research and Theory, New York: Academic Press.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
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The application of binding constraints by Japanese L2 learners of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Bowden, H., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2492–2511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.Google Scholar
Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children's processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128–144.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Chamorro, G., Sorace, A., & Sturt, P. (2015). What is the source of L1 attrition? The effect of recent L1 re-exposure on Spanish speakers under L1 attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Available online, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000152 Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MA. MIT Press.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
Clifton, C., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words her, his, and him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276–292.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for non-native speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistis, 34, 615–646.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Felser, C. (2013). The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 188–219.Google 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., Batterham, C., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2010). ‘Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh- dependencies: Evidence from eye-movements’ in VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Second Language Processing and Parsing I, pp 87–110. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Fotiadou, G., & Tsimpli, I. (under review). Anaphora resolution and reanalysis during L2 sentence processing: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Ms., University of Reading.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Sturt, P. (2014). Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 117–139.Google Scholar
Dallas, A., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J. (2013). An event-related potential (ERP) investigation of filler-gap processing in native and second language speakers. Language Learning, 63, 766–799.Google Scholar
Dallas, A., & Kaan, E. (2008). Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies in late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 372–388.Google 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., 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.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in second language learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P., & Cramer Scaltz, T. (2008). Spanish–English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.Google Scholar
Dussias, P., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.Google Scholar
Ellert, M. (2013). Resolving ambiguous pronouns in a second language: A visual-world eye-tracking study with Dutch learners of German. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 171–197.Google Scholar
Felser, C. (2015). Native vs. non-native processing of discontinuous dependencies. Second Language, 14, 5–19.Google Scholar
Felser, C. (2016). Binding and coreference in non-native language processing. In Holler, A. & Suckow, K. (eds.), Empirical perspectives on anaphora resolution: Information structural evidence in the race for salience, pp. 229–253. Berlin: De Gruyter.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.Google 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., Roberts, L., Marinis, T. & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.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.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English-Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226–248.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 119–148.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preferences in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Gilboy, E., Sopena, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.Google Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during sentence processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). Working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. (2015). Why it is pointless to ask under which specific circumstances the bilingual advantage occurs. Cortex, 73, 336–337.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21, 250–278.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015). Individual differences in the second language processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 129–173.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntatic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, L., Benz, L., Roeser, J., Dillon, B., & Vasishth, S. (2015). Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 506. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506 Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2012). The processing of subject–object ambiguities in native and near-native Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 721–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb vs reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 283–323.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 Learning. Language Teaching: Reviews and Studies, 42, 137–166.Google Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. The Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar
Just, M., Carpenter, T., & Keller, A. (1996). The capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. The Psychological Review, 103, 773–780.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L2. What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–82.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Ballantyne, J., & Wijnen, F. (2015). Effects of reading speed on second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 799–830.Google Scholar
Kan, I., Teubner-Rhodes, Drummey A., Nutile, L., Krupa, L., & Novick, J. (2013). To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition, 129, 637–651.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backward anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Keating, G. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.Google 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
Kennison, S. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 335–352.Google Scholar
Kim, E., Baek, S., & Tremblay, A. (2015). The role of island constraints in second language sentence processing. Language Acquisition, 22, 384–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Cunnings, I., & Lesmana, M. (2013). Time Course of Reference Resolution by Early and Late Bilinguals. Poster presented at AMLAP, Aix-Marseille Université, France.Google Scholar
Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.Google Scholar
Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computation principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.Google Scholar
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 27–46.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Osthus, P., Koeth, J., & Bunting, M. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic bulletin and Review, 21, 861–883.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L, Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.Google Scholar
Martin, A., & McElree, B. (2009). Memory operations that support language comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 35, 1231–1239.Google Scholar
Martin, A., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879–906.Google Scholar
Martin, A., & McElree, B. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from Sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 327–343.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 111–123.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In Ross, B. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 46. San Diego: Academic Press.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
McDonald, J. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgement performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
Miller, A. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referent in L2 processing of wh-dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 167–191.Google Scholar
Miller, A. (2015). Intermediate traces and intermediate learners: Evidence for the use of intermediate traces during sentence processing in second language French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 487–516.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 18, 5–20.Google Scholar
Novick, J., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, I., & Bunting, M. (2014). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 186–217.Google 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.Google Scholar
Pan, H., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.Google 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
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Peristeri, E., Plemenou, E., Marinis, T., & Tsimpli, I. (2015). Pronoun ambiguity resolution in Greek: Evidence from monolinguals adults and children. Lingua, 155, 98–120.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 147. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147 Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N., Garnsey, S., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). Some arguments and non-arguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 156–187.CrossRefGoogle 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
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013) Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182.Google Scholar
Rah, A., & Adone, D. (2010). Processing of the reduced relative clause versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 79–109.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.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
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2013). Working memory in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120, 2022–2039.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011). Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 120, 2022–2039.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2013). Processing of gender and number agreement in late Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 607–627.Google Scholar
Shen, E., Staub, A., & Sanders, L. (2013). Event-related brain potential evidence that local nouns affect subject-verb agreement processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 498–524.Google 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
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123. Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh- constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36, 201–216.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.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.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.Google 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
Traxler, M., & Pickering, M. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 542–562.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition, pp. 141–178. Washington, Georgetown University Press.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., & Johns, C. (2012). Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 193–211.Google Scholar
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
Van Dyke, J., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 247–263.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 Scholar
Van Gompel, R., & Liversedge, S. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 128–139.Google Scholar
Vuong, L., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-specific executive control and the revision of misinterpretations in sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 312–325.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (2015). Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–88.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (2012). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 419–456.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain & Language, 108, 40–55.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014) On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 761–770.Google Scholar