Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:48:26.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of variability in linguistic memory systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2016

MATTHEW W. WAGERS Open the ORCID record for MATTHEW W. WAGERS [Opens in a new window]
MATTHEW W. WAGERS*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Cruz
*
Address for correspondence: Stevenson College, University of California, Santa Cruz 1156 High St, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The target article makes a strong case that L2 comprehenders recover linguistic representations that are qualitatively similar to those recovered by L1 comprehenders. Moreover as they attempt to link non-adjacent elements, they do so using the same basic mechanism: cue-based retrieval in a content-addressable memory (Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003). In this commentary, I will not address the empirical adequacy of the argument, but instead consider some interesting theoretical challenges it poses for our understanding of working memory in sentence processing.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 710 - 711
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

Alcocer, P., & Phillips, C. (2012). Using Relational Syntactic Constraints in Content-Addressable Memory Architectures for Sentence Parsing. University of Maryland. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-Term Working Memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.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., 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
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing Recent Events. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 155–200.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285–316.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. (2013). Memory mechanisms for wh-dependency formation and their implications for islandhood. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.) Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., & McElree, B. (2013). Working memory and language processing: theory, data and directions for future research. In Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K. (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook for Biolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar