Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:17:51.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dominance, proficiency, and second language grammatical processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

David Birdsong
David Birdsong
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Clahsen and Felser (CF) deserve praise for their superlative synthesis of literature relating to grammatical processing, as well as for their original contributions to this area of research. CF “explore the idea that there might be fundamental differences between child L1 and adult L2 processing.” The researchers present evidence that adult second language (L2) processing is often less automatic and less efficient than first language (L1) processing. Qualitative differences are suggested as well. Adult L2 processing may be restricted to shallow computations, whereas L1 processing typically involves detailed representations. These conclusions are reached in large part by comparing highly proficient L2 learners with natives on various neurological and behavioral dimensions of processing. I propose that additional comparisons might be carried out that involve an understudied population: learners whose L2 is their dominant language.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 46 - 49
Copyright
© 2006 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

Cook V. 2003. Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cutler A., Mehler J., Norris D., & Segui J. 1989. Limits on bilingualism. Nature, 340, 229– 230.Google Scholar
Flege J. E. 2002. No perfect bilinguals. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), New Sounds 2000: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech (pp. 132– 141). Klagenfurt, Germany: University of Klagenfurt.
Flege J. E., MacKay I. R. A., & Piske T. 2002. Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 567– 598.Google Scholar
Golato P. 1998. Syllabification processes among French–English bilinguals: A further study of the limits of bilingualism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas–Austin.
Golato P. 2002. Word parsing by late-learning French–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 417– 446.Google Scholar
Grosjean F. 1998. Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 117– 130.Google Scholar
Pallier C., Poline J.-B., LeBihan D., Argenti A.-M., Dupoux E., & Mehler J. 2003. Brain imaging of language plasticity in adopted adults: Can a second language replace the first? Cerebral Cortex, 13, 155– 161.Google Scholar