1932

Abstract

Second language (L2) sentence processing research studies how adult L2 learners understand sentences in real time. I review how L2 sentence processing differs from monolingual first-language (L1) processing and outline major findings and approaches. Three interacting factors appear to mandate L1–L2 differences: () capacity restrictions in the ability to integrate information in an L2; () L1–L2 differences in the weighting of cues, the timing of their application, and the efficiency of their retrieval; and () variation in the utility functions of predictive processing. Against this backdrop, I outline a novel paradigm of interlanguage processing, which examines bilingual features of L2 processing, such as bilingual language systems, nonselective access to all grammars, and processing to learn an L2. Interlanguage processing goes beyond the traditional framing of L2 sentence processing as an incomplete form of monolingual processing and reconnects the field with current approaches to grammar acquisition and the bilingual mental lexicon.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113
2022-01-14
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aldwayan S, Fiorentino R, Gabriele A 2010. Evidence of syntactic constraints in the processing of wh-movement. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, Vol. 53: Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing B VanPatten, Jill Jegerski 65–86 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann GT, Kamide Y. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73:247–64
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amaral L, Roeper T. 2014. Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Lang. Res. 30:3–36
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andringa S. 2020. The emergence of awareness in uninstructed L2 learning: a visual world eye tracking study. Second Lang. Res. 36:335–57
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergmann C, Meulman N, Stowe LA, Sprenger SA, Schmid MS. 2015. Prolonged L2 immersion engenders little change in morphosyntactic processing of bilingual natives. Clin. Neurosci. 26:1065–70
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bley-Vroman R. 1988. The fundamental character of foreign language learning. Grammar and Second Language Teaching, ed. W Rutherford, M Sharwood Smith 19–30 Rowley, MA: Newbury House
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boxell O, Felser C. 2017. Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native and non-native sentence processing. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 20:494–511
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chambers CG, Cooke H. 2009. Lexical competition during second-language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35:1029–40
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaves RP, Putnam MT. 2021. Unbounded Dependency Constructions: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  10. Cheng Y, Rothman J, Cunnings I 2021. Parsing preferences and individual differences in nonnative sentence processing: evidence from eye movements. Appl. Psycholinguist. 42:129–51
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  12. Clahsen H, Felser C. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Appl. Psycholinguist. 27:3–46
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clahsen H, Felser C. 2018. Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 40:693–706
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Clifton C, Frazier L 1989. Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. Linguistic Structure in Language Processing GN Carlson, MK Tanenhaus 273–317 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cunnings I. 2017. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 20:659–78
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dallas A, Kaan E 2008. Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies in late learners. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2:372–88
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dekydtspotter L, Donaldson B, Edmonds AC, Fultz AL, Petrush RA. 2008. Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 30:453–80
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dell GS, Chang F. 2014. The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 36:20120394
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dijkgraaf A, Hartsuiker RJ, Duyck W. 2017. Predicting upcoming information in native-language and non-native-language auditory word recognition. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 20:917–30
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dijkstra T, Wahl A, Buytenhuijs F, van Halem N, Al-Jibouri Z et al. 2019. Multilink: a computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 22:657–79
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dillon B. 2014. Syntactic memory in the comprehension of reflexive dependencies: an overview. Lang. Linguist. Compass 8:171–87
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dussias P, Cramer Scaltz T. 2008. Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychol 128:501–13
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dussias PE, Kroff JRV, Tamargo REG, Gerfen C. 2013. When gender and looking go hand in hand: grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 35:353–87
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dussias PE, Piñar P. 2010. Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Lang. Res. 26:443–72
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dussias PE, Sagarra N. 2007. The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 10:101–16
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Federmeier KD. 2007. Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44:491–505
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Felser C. 2015. Native versus non-native processing of discontinuous dependencies. Second Lang. 14:5–19
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Felser C. 2019. Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing. J. Eur. Second Lang. Assoc. 3:12–22
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Felser C, Cunnings I. 2012. Processing reflexives in English as a second language: the role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Appl. Psycholinguist. 33:571–603
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Felser C, Cunnings I, Batterham C, Clahsen H. 2012. The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 34:67–98
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Felser C, Roberts L. 2007. Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: a cross-modal priming study. Second Lang. Res. 23:9–36
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Felser C, Roberts L, Marinis T, Gross R 2003. The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Appl. Psycholinguist. 24:453–89
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fernandez L, Höhle B, Brock J, Nickels L 2018. Investigating auditory processing of syntactic gaps with L2 speakers using pupillometry. Second Lang. Res. 34:201–27
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferreira F, Patson ND. 2007. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1:71–83
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fine AB, Jaeger TF, Farmer TA, Qian T. 2013. Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLOS ONE 8:10e77661
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fodor JD 1999. Learnability theory: triggers for parsing with. The Development of Second Language Grammars: A Generative Approach EC Klein, G Martohardjono 363–406 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Foley C, Flynn S. 2013. The role of the native language. The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition M Young-Scholten, J Herschensohn 97–113 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Frenck-Mestre C, Kim SK, Choo H, Ghio A, Herschensohn J, Koh S. 2019. Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 34:385–404
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Frenck-Mestre C, Pynte J. 1997. Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 50:119–48
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fujita H, Cunnings I. 2020. Reanalysis and lingering misinterpretation of linguistic dependencies in native and non-native sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 115:104154
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gibson E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:1–76
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Goad H, White L. 2019. Prosodic effects on L2 grammars. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 9:769–808
    [Google Scholar]
  43. González Alonso J, Rothman J 2022. The psycholinguistics of L3/Ln acquisition. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Psycholinguistics A Godfroid, H Hopp New York: Routledge. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Grey S. 2020. What can artificial languages reveal about morphosyntactic processing in bilinguals?. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 23:81–86
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Grosjean F, Byers-Heinlein K. 2018. The Listening Bilingual: Speech Perception, Comprehension, and Bilingualism Hoboken: Wiley
  46. Grüter T, Hopp H. 2021. How permeable are native and non-native syntactic processing to crosslinguistic influence?. J. Mem. Lang. 121:104281
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Grüter T, Lau E, Ling W. 2020. How classifiers facilitate predictive processing in L1 and L2 Chinese: the role of semantic and grammatical cues. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 35:221–34
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Grüter T, Lew-Williams C, Fernald A. 2012. Grammatical gender in L2: a production or a real-time processing problem?. Second Lang. Res. 28:191–215
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Grüter T, Rohde H. 2021. Limits on expectation-based processing: use of grammatical aspect for co-reference in L2. Appl. Psycholinguist. 42:51–75
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Grüter T, Rohde H, Schafer AJ. 2017. Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: the roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 7:199–229
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Haarmann HJ, Just MA, Carpenter PA. 1997. Aphasic sentence comprehension as a resource deficit: a computational approach. Brain Lang 59:76–120
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Havik E, Roberts L, van Hout R, Schreuder R, Haverkort M 2009. Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: a self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Lang. Learn. 59:73–112
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Henry N, Hopp H, Jackson CN. 2017. Cue additivity and adaptivity in predictive processing. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 32:1229–49
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hopp H. 2006. Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Lang. Res. 22:369–97
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hopp H. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua 120:901–31
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hopp H. 2013. Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Lang. Res. 29:33–56
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hopp H. 2014. Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Lang. Acquis. 21:250–78
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hopp H. 2015a. Individual differences in the second language processing of object-subject ambiguities. . Appl. Psycholinguist. 36:129–73
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hopp H. 2015b. Semantics and morphosyntax in L2 predictive sentence processing. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 53:277–306
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hopp H. 2016. Learning (not) to predict: grammatical gender processing in adult L2 acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 32::277–307
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hopp H. 2017. Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 7:96–130
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hopp H. 2018. The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Lang. Res. 17::5–27
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hopp H. 2020. Morphosyntactic adaptation in adult L2 processing: exposure and the processing of case and tense violations. Appl. Psycholinguist. 41:627–56
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hopp H 2021. Prediction and grammatical learning in second-language sentence processing. Prediction in L2 Processing and Learning E Kaan, T Grüter 277–307 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hopp H, Grüter T. 2021. The time-course of competition from the L1 grammar in L2 sentence processing: evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Second Lang. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211009586
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Hopp H, Lemmerth N. 2018. Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender processing. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 40:171–99
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hoshino N, Dussias PE, Kroll JF. 2010. Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 13:87–98
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Huettig F, Brouwer S. 2015. Delayed anticipatory spoken language processing in adults with dyslexia—evidence from eye-tracking. Dyslexia 21:97–122
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Huettig F, Rommers J, Meyer AS 2011. Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: a review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychol 137:151–71
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Ito A, Corley M, Pickering MJ. 2018. A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 21:251–64
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Jackson C. 2008. Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Lang. Learn. 58:875–909
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Jackson CN. 2018. Second language structural priming: a critical review and directions for future research. Second Lang. Res. 34:539–52
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Jackson CN, Hopp H. 2020. Prediction error and implicit learning in L1 and L2 syntactic priming. Int. J. Biling. 24:895–911
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Jackson CN, Roberts L. 2010. Animacy affects the processing of subject-object ambiguities in the second language: evidence from self-paced reading with German second language learners of Dutch. Appl. Psycholinguist. 31:671–91
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Jacob G. 2009. The role of the native language in second-language syntactic processing. PhD Thesis Dundee School of Psychology Dundee, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Jacob G, Felser C 2016. Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 69:907–25
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Jegerski J, Sekerina IA. 2020. The processing of input with differential object marking by heritage Spanish speakers. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 23:274–82
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Jessen A, Felser C. 2019. Reanalysing object gaps during non-native sentence processing: evidence from ERPs. Second Lang. Res. 35:285–300
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Juffs A. 2004. Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Trans. Philol. Soc. 102:199–225
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Juffs A, Harrington M. 1996. Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Lang. Learn. 46:283–323
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Juffs A, Rodriguez G. 2014. Second Language Sentence Processing New York: Routledge
  82. Just MA, Carpenter PA. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol. Rev. 99:122–49
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Kaan E. 2014. Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?. Linguist. Approaches Biling 4:257–82
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Kaan E, Ballantyne JC, Wijnen F. 2015. Effects of reading speed on second-language sentence processing. Appl. Psycholinguist. 36:799–830
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kaan E, Chun E 2018. Syntactic adaptation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 68 D Watson, K Federmeier 85–116 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Kaan E, Futch C, Fuertes RF, Mujcinovic S, de la Fuente EÁ. 2019. Adaptation to syntactic structures in native and nonnative sentence comprehension. Appl. Psycholinguist. 40:3–27
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Kaan E, Kirkham J, Wijnen F. 2016. Prediction and integration in native and second-language processing of elliptical structures. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 19:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Kasparian K, Steinhauer K. 2017. When the second language takes the lead: neurocognitive processing changes in the first language of adult attriters. Front. Psychol. 8:389
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Kim E, Baek S, Tremblay A. 2015a. The role of island constraints in second language sentence processing. Lang. Acquis. 22:384–416
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Kim E, Montrul S, Yoon J 2015b. The on-line processing of binding principles in second language acquisition: evidence from eye tracking. Appl. Psycholinguist. 36:1317–74
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Kleinschmidt DF, Jaeger TF. 2015. Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychol. Rev. 122:148–203
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Kuperberg GR, Jaeger TF. 2016. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31:32–59
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Lardiere D. 2009. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 25:173–227
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lee EK, Lu DHY, Garnsey SM. 2013. L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 16:761–75
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lemmerth N, Hopp H. 2019. Gender processing in simultaneous and successive bilingual children: effects of lexical and syntactic cross-linguistic influence. Lang. Acquis. 26:21–45
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Lew-Williams C, Fernald A 2010. Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. J. Mem. Lang. 63:447–64
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Lewis RL, Vasishth S, Van Dyke JA. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10:447–54
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Linck JA, Osthus P, Koeth JT, Bunting MF. 2014. Working memory and second language comprehension and production: a meta-analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21:861–83
    [Google Scholar]
  99. López Prego B, Gabriele A 2014. Examining the impact of task demands on morphological variability in native and non-native Spanish. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 4:192–221
    [Google Scholar]
  100. MacDonald MC, Hsiao Y. 2018. Sentence comprehension. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics 2 SA Rüschemeyer, MG Gaskell 171–96 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Marinis T, Roberts L, Felser C, Clahsen H. 2005. Gaps in second language sentence processing. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 27:53–78
    [Google Scholar]
  102. McDonald J. 2006. Beyond the critical period: processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgement performance by late second language learners. J. Mem. Lang. 55:381–401
    [Google Scholar]
  103. McElree B. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. J. Psychol. Res. 29:111–23
    [Google Scholar]
  104. McRae K, Matsuki K. 2013. Constraint-based models of sentence processing. See van Gompel 2013 51–77
  105. Meir N, Parshina O, Sekerina IA 2020. The interaction of morphological cues in bilingual sentence processing: an eye-tracking study. Proceedings of the 44th Boston University Conference on Language Development MM Brown, A Kohut 376–89 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Miller AK. 2014. Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh-dependencies. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 4:167–91
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Mishra RK, Singh N, Pandey A, Huettig F. 2012. Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye movements are modulated by reading ability: evidence from Indian low and high literates. J. Eye Mov. Res. 5:1 https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.5.1.3
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Mitsugi S, MacWhinney B. 2016. The use of case marking for predictive processing in second language Japanese. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 19:19–35
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Montrul S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  110. Morales L, Paolieri D, Dussias PE, Kroff JRV, Gerfen C, Bajo MT. 2016. The gender congruency effect during bilingual spoken-word recognition. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 19:294–310
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Morgan-Short K. 2020. Insights into the neural mechanisms of becoming bilingual: a brief synthesis of second language research with artificial linguistic systems. Biling. Lang.: Cogn. 23:87–91
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Nickels S, Opitz B, Steinhauer K. 2013. ERPs show that classroom-instructed late second language learners rely on the same prosodic cues in syntactic parsing as native speakers. Neurosci. Lett. 557:107–11
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Omaki A, Lidz J. 2015. Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Lang. Acquis. 22:158–92
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Omaki A, Schulz B. 2011. Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 33:563–88
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Ortega L. 2010. The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics Atlanta, GA: Mar. 6–9
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Osterhout L, McLaughlin J, Pitkänen I, Frenck-Mestre C, Molinaro N. 2006. Novice learners, longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: a means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. Lang. Learn. 56:199–230
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Pan H, Felser C. 2011. Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua 121:221–36
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Patterson C, Trompelt H, Felser C. 2014. The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Front. Psychol. 5:147
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Peters R, Grüter T, Borovsky A. 2018. Vocabulary size and native speaker self-identification influence flexibility in linguistic prediction among adult bilinguals. Appl. Psycholinguist. 39:1439–69
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Phillips C, Ehrenhofer L. 2015. The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 5:409–53
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Pickering MJ, Gambi C. 2018. Predicting while comprehending language: a theory and review. Psychol. Bull. 144:1002–44
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Pliatsikas C, Marinis T. 2013. Processing empty categories in a second language: when naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 16:167–82
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Polinsky M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  124. Pozzan L, Trueswell J. 2016. Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual-world study. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 19:636–43
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Rankin T, Grüter T, Hopp H 2019. Investigating co-activation of L1 syntax during processing of wh-questions: eye-tracking evidence from L1 German–L2 English. Explorations in Second Language Acquisition and Processing R Slabakova, J Corbet, L Domínguez, A Dudley, A Wallington 154–70 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Sch.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Roberts L. 2013. Sentence processing in bilinguals. See van Gompel 221–46
  127. Roberts L, Felser C. 2011. Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing. Appl. Psycholinguist. 32:299–331
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Roberts L, Gullberg M, Indefrey P. 2008. Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 30:333–57
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Şafak DF, Hopp H. 2021. Verb bias and semantic persistence effects in L2 ambiguity resolution. Second Lang. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321997904
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Sagarra N 2022. Sentence processing: cognitive approaches to L2 morphosyntactic and morphological processing. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Psycholinguistics A Godfroid, H Hopp New York: Routledge. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Schmid MS. 2011. Language Attrition Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  132. Schwartz BD, Sprouse R 1994. Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar T Hoekstra, BD Schwartz 71–89 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Selinker L. 1972. Interlanguage. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 10:209–31
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Sorace A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 1:1–33
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Stowe LA. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 1:227–45
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Sturt P. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. J. Mem. Lang. 48:542–62
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Tanner D, Nicol J, Herschensohn J, Osterhout L, Biller AK et al. 2012. Electrophysiological markers of interference and structural facilitation in native and nonnative agreement processing. Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development594–606 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Teubner-Rhodes SE, Mishler A, Corbett R, Andreu L, Sanz-Torrent M et al. 2016. The effects of bilingualism on conflict monitoring, cognitive control, and garden-path recovery. Cognition 150:213–31
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Tokowicz N. 2015. Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition New York: Routledge
  140. Trueswell JC, Sekerina I, Hill NM, Logrip ML. 1999. The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73:89–134
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Ullman MT 2016. The declarative/procedural model: a neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. Neurobiology of Language G Hickock, SL Small 953–68 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Valdés Kroff JR, Dussias PE, Gerfen C, Perrotti L, Bajo MT 2017. Experience with code-switching modulates the use of grammatical gender during sentence processing. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 7:163–98
    [Google Scholar]
  143. van Assche E, Duyck W, Hartsuiker RJ. 2012. Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Front. Psychol. 3:174
    [Google Scholar]
  144. van Bergen G, Flecken M. 2017. Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics. J. Mem. Lang. 92:26–42
    [Google Scholar]
  145. van Gompel RP 2013. Sentence Processing Hove, UK: Psychol. Press
  146. van Hell JG, Tokowicz N. 2010. Event-related brain potentials and second language learning: syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Lang. Res. 26:43–74
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Westergaard M. 2021. Microvariation in multilingual situations: the importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 37:379–407
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Williams J, Möbius P, Kim C 2001. Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. . Appl. Psycholinguist. 22::509–40
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Yan S, Jaeger TF. 2020. Expectation adaptation during natural reading. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 35:1394–1422
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error