Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:26:26.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING: RELATIVE CLAUSE ATTACHMENT IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2004

Lucinda Hart-González
Lucinda Hart-González
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING: RELATIVE CLAUSE ATTACHMENT IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. Eva M. Fernández. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003. Pp. xx + 292. $118.00 cloth.

The purpose of this dissertation monograph is “to determine whether bilinguals, with proficiencies in each of their languages sufficient to support responsible fluency, process linguistic input by employing the routines that are followed by monolinguals of each of their languages” (p. 211). In other words, the question is whether the sentence processing of bilinguals is dependent on the language of the sentence (language dependence) or on the dominant language of the bilingual (called language independence). The study first identifies a sentence type with crosslinguistic processing differences and then seeks to determine whether monolinguals and bilinguals process those sentences differently in online (early phase) and offline (postsyntactic) tests.

Type
BOOK REVIEWS
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 635 - 636
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

Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 664–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319.Google Scholar