Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:48:08.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammar and parsing and a transition theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

Alan Juffs
Alan Juffs
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The article by Clahsen and Felser (CF) on grammatical processing in language learning is a timely and much-needed synthesis of research on this topic. It correctly identifies both morphological processing and syntactic processing as key areas that require attention. This commentary raises two issues: the relationship between the grammar and the parser, and the need for a transition theory in adult second language (L2) learning.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 69 - 71
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

Bley-Vroman R. 1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41– 68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borsley R. 1998. Syntactic theory. Oxford: Arnold.
Canale M., & Swain M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1– 17.Google Scholar
Chomsky N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen H., & Muysken P. 1986. The availability of UG to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93– 119.Google Scholar
DeKeyser R. M., Salaberry R., Robinson P., & Harrington M. W. 2002. What gets processed in processing instuction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52, 805– 823.Google Scholar
Fodor J. D. 1998. Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 1– 36.Google Scholar
Gregg K. 1996. The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 50– 84). New York: Academic Press.
Johnson J., & Newport E. 1989. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60– 99.Google Scholar
Juffs A. 2005. The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121– 151.Google Scholar
King J., & Just M. A. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580– 602.Google Scholar
Marinis T., Roberts L., Felser C., & Clahsen H. 2005. Gaps in second language sentence processing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Paulston C. B. 1974. Linguistics and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 347– 362.Google Scholar
Pritchett B. L. 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
VanPatten B. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten B. 2002. Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755– 803.Google Scholar
Weinberg A. 1999. A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 287– 315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.