Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:02:41.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

Antonella Sorace
Antonella Sorace
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The proposal by Clahsen and Felser (CF) has the potential of marking a turning point in second language (L2) acquisition research. Contrary to much L2 research to date, it suggests that some of the differences between native and (advanced) nonnative speakers may be at the level of grammatical processing, rather than grammatical representations. Accounting for L2 speakers' divergent behavior does therefore not necessarily involve positing “representational deficits”: L2 speakers can, and indeed do, attain target representations of the L2, but may compute incomplete (“shallow”) syntactic parses in comprehension. Such shallow processing is often accompanied by reliance (or overreliance) on lexical, semantic, and pragmatic information, which can lead to seemingly trouble-free comprehension in ordinary communication. It is only when speakers are faced with sentence ambiguities, which impose a greater than normal processing load, that the differences between adult L2 language acquirers and child first language (L1) acquirers become apparent: both child and adult language learners have difficulty in integrating structural and nonstructural information in on-line comprehension, but although children prioritize structural information, adult learners privilege nonstructural lexical–semantic information. CF's proposal opens up new perspectives on the nature of ultimate attainment in adult L2 acquisition; at the same time it raises some questions that, in my view, are of crucial importance for future research.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 88 - 91
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

Belletti A. 2005. Answering with a cleft: The role of the null subject parameter and the VP periphery. Unpublished manuscript, University of Siena.
Belletti A., Bennati E., & Sorace A. 2005, February. Revisiting the null subject parameter from an L2 developmental perspective: Pronominal subjects and postverbal subjects in adult L2 near native Italian. Paper presented at the XXXI Generative Grammar Meeting, Rome.
Belletti A., & Leonini C. 2004. Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & M. Ota (Eds.), Eurosla yearbook (pp. 95– 118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bini M. 1993. La adquisicíon del Italiano: Mas allá de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro Pro-Drop. In J. Liceras (Ed.), La linguistica y el analisis de los sistemas no nativos (pp. 126– 139). Ottawa, Canada: Doverhouse.
Levelt W. 1989. Speaking from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Liceras J., & Diaz L. 1999. Topic-drop versus pro-drop: Null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 15, 1– 40.Google Scholar
Pinto M. 1997. Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Sorace A. 2003. Near-nativeness. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130– 152). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sorace A. 2005. Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55– 80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsimpli T., Sorace A., Heycock C., & Filiaci F. 2004. First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 255– 277.Google Scholar