Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Book part
- 1 Premises of multi-competence
- 2 Research questions and methodology of multi-competence
- 3 Multi-competence in second language acquisition: inroads into the mainstream?
- 4 Not through a glass darkly: refocusing the psycholinguistic study of bilingualism through a “bivocal” lens
- 5 Multilingualism research
- 6 Multi-competence and dynamic/complex systems
- 7 Multi-competence and Dominant Language Constellation
- 8 Consequences of multi-competence for sociolinguistic research
- 9 A usage-based account of multi-competence
- 10 Multi-competence and syntax
- 11 Syntactic processing
- 12 Language and cognition in bilinguals
- 13 Gestures in multi-competence
- 14 Pragmatic transferin foreign language learners: a multi-competence perspective
- 15 Multi-competence and endangered language revitalization
- 16 Multi-competence and first language attrition
- 17 Cognitive consequences of multi-competence
- 18 Space, motion and thinking for language
- 19 Multi-competence and personality
- 20 Multi-competence as a creative act: ramifications of the multi-competence paradigm for creativity research and creativity-fostering education
- 21 Multi-competence and language teaching
- 22 Multi-competence and emotion
- 23 Multi-competence and English as a lingua franca
- 24 A critical reaction from second language acquisition research
- 25 Questions of multi-competence: a written interview
- 26 Epilogue: multi-competence and the TranslanguagingInstinct
- Bibliography of ‘multi-competence’ (and related topics)
- Index
- References
11 - Syntactic processing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2016
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Book part
- 1 Premises of multi-competence
- 2 Research questions and methodology of multi-competence
- 3 Multi-competence in second language acquisition: inroads into the mainstream?
- 4 Not through a glass darkly: refocusing the psycholinguistic study of bilingualism through a “bivocal” lens
- 5 Multilingualism research
- 6 Multi-competence and dynamic/complex systems
- 7 Multi-competence and Dominant Language Constellation
- 8 Consequences of multi-competence for sociolinguistic research
- 9 A usage-based account of multi-competence
- 10 Multi-competence and syntax
- 11 Syntactic processing
- 12 Language and cognition in bilinguals
- 13 Gestures in multi-competence
- 14 Pragmatic transferin foreign language learners: a multi-competence perspective
- 15 Multi-competence and endangered language revitalization
- 16 Multi-competence and first language attrition
- 17 Cognitive consequences of multi-competence
- 18 Space, motion and thinking for language
- 19 Multi-competence and personality
- 20 Multi-competence as a creative act: ramifications of the multi-competence paradigm for creativity research and creativity-fostering education
- 21 Multi-competence and language teaching
- 22 Multi-competence and emotion
- 23 Multi-competence and English as a lingua franca
- 24 A critical reaction from second language acquisition research
- 25 Questions of multi-competence: a written interview
- 26 Epilogue: multi-competence and the TranslanguagingInstinct
- Bibliography of ‘multi-competence’ (and related topics)
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence , pp. 227 - 247Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Baddeley, A. 2003. ‘Working memory and language: an overview’, Journal of Communication Disorders 36, 189–208.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K. and Marian, V. 2013. ‘Cognitive control and parallel language activation during word recognition in bilinguals’, Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25 (5), 547–567.Google Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M. and Carlson, G. N. 1995. ‘Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: evidence from wh-questions’, Journal of Memory and Language 34, 774–806.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1976. ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, pp. 25–55. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Felser, C. 2006. ‘Grammatical processing in language learners’, Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr 1993. ‘Thematic roles in sentence parsing’, Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 47, 222–246.Google Scholar
Costa, A. Caramazza, A. and Sebastián-Gallés, N. 2000. ‘The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26, 1283–1296.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., Felser, C. and Clahsen, H. 2010. ‘Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh-dependencies: evidence from eye movements’, in VanPatten, B. and Jegerski, J. (eds), Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing, pp. 87–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. 2004. ‘The multilingual lexicon: modeling selection and control’, International Journal of Multilingualism 1, 17–32.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. New York and Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, M. 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. and Sprouse, R. A. 2006. ‘The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research’, in O’Brien, M. G., Shea, C. and Archibald, J. (eds), Proceedings from the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006), pp. 33–40. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1983. ‘The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22, 121–132.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. and van Heuven, W. J. B. 1998. ‘The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition’, in Grainger, J. and Jacobs, A. M. (eds), Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition, pp. 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dornič, S. 1980. ‘Language dominance, spare capacity and perceived effort in bilinguals’, Ergonomics 23, 369–377.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. and Cramer Scaltz, T. R. 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. E. and Piñar, P. 2010. ‘Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese–English L2 speakers’, Second Language Research 26, 443–472.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 1996. ‘Phonological memory, chunking and points of order’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 91–126.Google Scholar
Felser, C. and 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. and 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
Fender, M. 2001. ‘A review of L1 and L2/ESL word integration skills and the nature of L2/ESL word integration development involved in lower-level text processing’, Language Learning 51, 319–396.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and Flores d’Arcais, G. B. 1989. ‘Filler-driven parsing: a study of gap filling in Dutch’, Journal of Memory and Language 28, 331–344.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. 2002. ‘An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language’, in Heredia, R. and Altarriba, J. (eds), Bilingual Sentence Processing, pp. 217–236. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. 2005. ‘Ambiguities and anomalies: what can eye movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language processing?’, in Kroll, J. F. and de Groot, A. M. B. (eds), Handbook of Bilingualism, pp. 268–284. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. and Pynte, J. 1997. ‘Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, section A: Human Experimental Psychology 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E. and Hickok, G. 1996. ‘Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism’, Cognition 59, 21–39Google Scholar
Gibson, E. and Warren, T. 2004. ‘Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies’, Syntax 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J. and Gilliom, L. A. 1993. ‘Pronouns, names and the centering of attention in discourse’, Cognitive Science 17 (3), 311–348.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. and Sawyer, M. 1992. ‘L2 working memory and L2 reading skill’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 25–38.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R. and Haverkort, M. 2009. ‘Processing subject–object ambiguities in the L2: a self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch’, Language Learning 59, 73–112.Google Scholar
Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hoover, M. L. and Dwivedi, V. D. 1998. ‘Syntactic processing in skilled bilinguals’, Language Learning 48, 1–29.Google Scholar
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
Jackson, C. N. 2008. ‘Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing’, Language Learning 58, 875–909.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. and Roberts, L. 2010. ‘Animacy affects the processing of subject–object ambiguities in L2 processing: evidence from self-paced reading with German L2 learners of Dutch’, Applied Psycholinguistics 31, 671–691.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. and van Hell, J. G. 2011. ‘The effects of L2 proficiency level on the processing of wh-questions among Dutch second language speakers of English‘, International Review of Applied Linguistics 49, 195–219.Google 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. 2005. ‘The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language’, Second Language Research 21, 121–151.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. 1995. ‘Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 483–516.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. 1996. ‘Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research’, Language Learning 46, 286–324.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. 2011. ‘Aspects of working memory in second language learning and teaching’, Language Teaching 44, 137–166.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. 2004. ‘Grammars, parsers, and language acquisition’, Journal of Child Language 31, 480–483.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. 1992. ‘On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language’, in Harris, R. (ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, pp. 337–350. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. 2004. ‘Are subject islands subject to a processing account?’, in Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodríguez, A. J. and Schmeiser, B. (eds), Proceedings of the 23rd WCCFL. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Marian, V. and Spivey, M. 2003. ‘Competing activation in bilingual language processing: within- and between-language competition’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6, 97–115.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C. and Clahsen, H. 2005. ‘Gaps in second language processing’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 53–78.Google Scholar
McRae, K. and Matsuki, K. 2013. ‘Constraint-based models of sentence processing’, in van Gompel, R. (ed.), pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
Miyake, A. and Friedman, N. 1998. ‘Individual differences in second language proficiency: working memory as language aptitude’, in Healy, A. and Bourne, L. (eds), Foreign Language Learning, pp. 339–364. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Omaki, A. and Schulz, B. 2011. ‘Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 563–588.Google Scholar
Osaka, M. and Osaka, N. 1992. ‘Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30, 287–289.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. and 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
Pickering, M. J. and Garrod, S. 2013. ‘An integrated theory of language production and comprehension’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, 329–347.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. and Traxler, M. J. 1998. ‘Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths: an eye-tracking study’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 24, 940–961.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. 1992. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., in preparation. Pronoun resolution in Turkish–Dutch bilinguals.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. and 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. and 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
Roberts, L. and Liszka, S. A. 2013 ‘Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second language: a self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English’, Second Language Research 29 (4), 413–439.Google Scholar
Service, E., Simola, M., Metsanheimo, O. and Maury, S. 2002. ‘Bilingual working memory span is affected by language skill’, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 14, 383–408.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. 2009. ‘The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis twenty years later’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31 (2), 155–173.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. 1989. ‘Thematic structures and sentence comprehension’, in Carlson, G. and Tanenhaus, M. (eds), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J. and Bever, T. G. 2001. Sentence Comprehension. The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A. and Morris, R. K. 2005. ‘Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses’, Journal of Memory and Language 53, 204–224.Google Scholar
Waters, G. S. and Caplan, D. 1996. ‘The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 49, 51–79.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. 1999. ‘A minimalist theory of human sentence processing’, in Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds), Working Minimalism, pp. 283–315. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. 2006. ‘Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9, 71–81.Google Scholar