The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Grammatical processing in language learners
Abstract
The ability to process the linguistic input in real time is crucial for successfully acquiring a language, and yet little is known about how language learners comprehend or produce language in real time. Against this background, we have conducted a detailed study of grammatical processing in language learners using experimental psycholinguistic techniques and comparing different populations (mature native speakers, child first language [L1] and adult second language [L2] learners) as well as different domains of language (morphology and syntax). This article presents an overview of the results from this project and of other previous studies, with the aim of explaining how grammatical processing in language learners differs from that of mature native speakers. For child L1 processing, we will argue for a continuity hypothesis claiming that the child's parsing mechanism is basically the same as that of mature speakers and does not change over time. Instead, empirical differences between child and mature speaker's processing can be explained by other factors such as the child's limited working memory capacity and by less efficient lexical retrieval. In nonnative (adult L2) language processing, some striking differences to native speakers were observed in the domain of sentence processing. Adult learners are guided by lexical–semantic cues during parsing in the same way as native speakers, but less so by syntactic information. We suggest that the observed L1/L2 differences can be explained by assuming that the syntactic representations adult L2 learners compute during comprehension are shallower and less detailed than those of native speakers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing
Friederici, A. D. (2002) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8 · Cited by 2,231
Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability theory
Pienemann, M. (1998) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.15 · Cited by 802
Hulstijn, J. (2002) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1191/0267658302sr207oa · Cited by 250 · cited 1×
“…in language learners (see, e.g., Crain & Wexler, 1999; Fodor, 1998a, 1999, for children; Andersen, 1993; Carroll, 2001; Clahsen, 1984; Gregg, 2003; Hulstijn, 2002; Pienemann, 1998; VanPatten, 1996, for L2 learners), while at the same time providing little experimental psycholinguistic evidence on…”
Cited by
Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview
Birdsong, D. (2006) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00353.x · Cited by 544
How native-like is non-native language processing?
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002 · Cited by 395
Self-citationTHE EVOLVING CONTEXT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109090275 · Cited by 335
The Declarative/Procedural Model
Ullman, M. T. (2016) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6 · Cited by 294
Aspects of working memory in L2 learning
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444810000509 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- CLAHSEN, H., & FELSER, C.
- Venue
- Applied Psycholinguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-42
- ISSN
- 0142-7164 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1817
- OpenAlex
- W2069079548
- Cited by
- 1,150
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.