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.Assigning a grammatical structure to an input string presupposes knowledge of the combinatorial rules and grammatical constraints that apply in the language being processed. At the same time, however, successful grammar building presupposes the availability of appropriate mechanisms for processing the linguistic input (compare Chaudron, 1985;Fodor, 1998aFodor, , 1998bFodor, , 1999Valian, 1990). This apparent acquisition paradox poses a challenge for theories of first (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition that requires our existing knowledge of language learners' grammatical development to be supplemented by a detailed and systematic investigation of their grammatical processing routines. Although several decades' worth of psycholinguistic research has greatly increased our understanding of how mature readers and listeners process their native language in real time, psycholinguistically informed research into language learners' processing mechanisms

Multi-competence and first language attrition

“…Such findings are in line with proposals that assume that language learners, particularly when they are not yet very experienced, use lexical cues more than native speakers do, who have fully automatized their grammatical processing system (e.g. the 'Shallow Structure Hypothesis', Clahsen and Felser 2006). It would be very interesting to see what happens to longterm attriters in this type of paradigm.…”

Language Switching in the Production of Phrases

“…This proposal is supported by neurolinguistic data, showing that localisation of lexicon depends on proficiency level, while localisation of syntax depends on age of acquisition (Wartenburger et al 2003). Clahsen and Felser (2006) argue that L2 processing can become native-like in some linguistic sub-domains (including certain aspects of grammar), but that L1/L2 processing differences persist in the domain of complex syntax, even in highly proficient L2 speakers. Based on such a claim, it can be argued that L2 grammatical structures may differ in processing cost and speed of availability.…”

The Generative Approach to Sla and Its Place in Modern Second Language Studies

“…Nowadays, GenSLA has not only aligned itself better with psycholinguistic inquiry, characterized by shifts in methodological design and experimentation techniques, GenSLA is also using processing findings to address/make claims regarding debates on L2 competence. Take for example, the Shallow Structures Hypothesis (SSH) (Clahsen & Felser, 2006), which argues that L2 processing is qualitatively different from L1 processing because only the latter employs complete underlying representations. The SSH is considered a mainstream theory of L2 psycholinguistics, in fact potentially the main promoter of the surging interest in L2 processing since the early 2000s (cf.…”