Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T22:12:50.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 processing and memory retrieval: Some empirical and conceptual challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2016

GUNNAR JACOB ,
SOL LAGO  and
CLARE PATTERSON
GUNNAR JACOB
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
SOL LAGO*
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
CLARE PATTERSON
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
*
Address for correspondence: Dr. Sol Lago, University of Potsdam, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism, Haus 2, Campus Golm, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24–25, 14476 Potsdam, Germanymarlago@uni-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cunnings' keynote offers a new perspective on L2 processing by casting L1–L2 differences in terms of the memory system. One advantage of this approach is that it makes use of cue-based memory retrieval, a framework that has given rise to a wealth of research on L1 processing. However, there remain some questions about the evidence-base and predictions of the account, as well as conceptual challenges to its implementation.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 691 - 693
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

Hoshino, N., Dussias, P.E., & Kroll, J.F. (2010). Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 87–98.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2010). Age of acquisition and proficiency as factors in language production: Agreement in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 2, 99–118.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and nonnative garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 5, 907–925.Google Scholar
Kırkıcı, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 776–794.Google Scholar
Lago, S., & Felser, C. (submitted). Agreement attraction in native and non-native speakers of German.Google Scholar
Lim, H. L., & Christianson, K. (2014). Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1283–1315.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., & Greth, D. (2003). Production of subject–verb agreement in Spanish as a second language. Experimental Psychology, 50, 196–203.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