Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:19:40.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility to interference affects the second and the first language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

PAOLA E. DUSSIAS ,
ANNE L. BEATTY-MARTÍNEZ  and
LAUREN PERROTTI
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS*
Affiliation:
Penn State University
ANNE L. BEATTY-MARTÍNEZ
Affiliation:
Penn State University
LAUREN PERROTTI
Affiliation:
Penn State University
*
Address for correspondence: Paola E. Dussias, Penn State University, Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, 439 Burrowes Building, University park, PA 16803, U.S.A.[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Memory is an integral part of language processing. Given this, a better understanding of how people learn, represent and process language requires considerations of the principles of memory that support language comprehension. Cunnings’ paper (Cunnings, 2016) does just this. The core of his proposal is that second language (L2) processing that is non-target like can be explained in terms of memory operations rather than by invoking a shallow processor (cf. Clahsen & Felser, 2006).

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 681 - 682
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.)

Footnotes

*

The writing of this commentary was funded in part by NIH grant 5R21HD071758 to Paola E. Dussias

References

Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Native language change during early stages of second language learning. NeuroReport, 26, 966–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2016). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Perrotti, L., Carlson, M., & Morales, L. (2016). Exposure to a second language can change processing routines in the first language. Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Granada, Spain. May 5–8.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. In Liberman, M. & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed