Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T07:18:28.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It is time to work toward explicit processing models for native and second language speakers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

Peter Indefrey
Peter Indefrey
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and F.C. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their target article, Clahsen and Felser (CF) review studies that they and others have conducted in recent years to confirm the dual mechanism hypothesis and to extend its application to first and second language (L1 and L2) learners. They interpret the findings as supporting both the dual mechanism hypothesis and the claim that the sentence-level processing of L2 but not L1 learners shows “striking” differences compared to adult native speakers. I argue that an exclusive focus on the representation of linguistic knowledge is insufficient for understanding the real-time processes in morphological production and sentence comprehension.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 66 - 69
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

Beck M.-L. 1997. Regular verbs, past tense and frequency: Tracking down a potential source of NS/NNS competence differences. Second Language Research, 13, 93– 115.Google Scholar
Clahsen H., Hadler M., & Weyerts H. 2004. Speeded production of inflected words in children and adults. Journal of Child Language, 31, 683– 712.Google Scholar
Dapretto M., & Bookheimer S. Y. 1999. Form and content: Dissociating syntax and semantics in sentence comprehension. Neuron, 24, 427– 432.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78– 84.Google Scholar
Hagoort P., Brown C. M., & Wassenaar M. 2003. Real-time semantic compensation in patients with agrammatic comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence for multiple-route plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 4340– 4345.Google Scholar
Indefrey P., Hellwig F., Herzog H., Seitz R. J., & Hagoort P. 2004. Neural responses to the production and comprehension of syntax in identical utterances. Brain and Language, 89, 312– 319.Google Scholar
Jaeger J. J., Lockwood A. H., Kemmerer D. L., Van Valin R. D., Murphy B. W., & Khalak H. G. 1996. A positron emission tomographic study of regular and irregular morphology in English. Language, 72, 451– 497.Google Scholar
Marinis T., Roberts L., Felser C., & Clahsen H. 2005. Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53– 78.Google Scholar
Pinker S. 1999. Words and rules. The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
Prasada S., Pinker S., & Snyder W. 1990. Some evidence that irregular forms are retrieved from memory but regular forms are rule-generated. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
Roberts L., Marinis T., Felser C., & Clahsen H. 2004. Antecedent priming at trace positions in children's sentence processing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Essex.
Sach M., Seitz R. J., & Indefrey P. 2004. Unified inflectional processing of regular and irregular verbs: A PET study. NeuroReport, 15, 533– 537.Google Scholar