Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T08:02:21.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVIEW ARTICLE: Representation and Processing Really Are Stuck with Each Other

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Donna Lardiere
Donna Lardiere
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

INPUT AND EVIDENCE: THE RAW MATERIAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. Susanne E. Carroll. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2001. Pp. xviii + 462. $114.00 cloth.

The ambitious goal of this book is the exposition of “a truly explanatory theory of SLA” (back cover). Such a theory is bound to be multifaceted and complex, and indeed, Carroll draws from a variety of theoretical frameworks in exploring the relationship between input—or more precisely, the nature of the mechanisms brought to bear in processing language stimuli—and the nature of the language knowledge that (adult) second language (L2) learners ultimately acquire. In other words, a theory of acquisition must be integrated with a theory of speech processing to explain how language stimuli are transformed into abstract mental representations; this book represents Carroll's attempt to construct just such a model.

Type
Review Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 461 - 467
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Fanselow, G. (1993). Some reflections on parameters. In G. Fanselow (Ed.), The parametrization of Universal Grammar (pp. vii–xvii). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Haider, H. (1993). Principled variability: Parametrization without parameter fixing. In G. Fanselow (Ed.), The parametrization of Universal Grammar (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Izumi, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1998). Learnability, negative evidence, and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research, 14, 62–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kim, K. H. S., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K. M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Neville, H. J., Mills, D. L., & Lawson, D. S. (1992). Fractionating language: Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar