Introduction published in:
Parsing to Learn
Edited by Laurent Dekydtspotter and Claire Renaud
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4:2] 2014
► pp. 131–165

[ p. 131 ]On second language processing and grammatical development

The parser in second language acquisition

| Indiana University
| Arizona State University
The parsing-to-learn hypothesis (Fodor, 1998) identifying the parser as the language acquisition device (PLAD) is discussed for second-language (L2) grammatical acquisition. Parsing is assumed to involve concomitant UG-sanctioned structure generation and licensing by a parameterized lexicon. In this architecture, licensing induces immediate changes to the lexical knowledge base as new feature matrices for categories and their exponents are registered. Stages arise as these matrices are increasingly activated and can be accessed within the narrow window imposed by working-memory limitations. Specifically, the PLAD instantiates feature re-assembly (Lardiere, 2009) in response to licensing failures (Clark & Roberts, 1993), characterizing transitions between grammatical states (Gregg, 1996, 2003) in the Full Transfer/Full Access model (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994, 1996). The PLAD is examined in light of current research and of evidence showing mandatory engagement of syntax, breakdown reflecting feature organization, and domain-specificity. The PLAD offers potentially fruitful insights about L2 parsing and grammatical development.
Keywords: parsing to learn, language acquisition device, Full Transfer/Full Access, feature re-assembly, second language acquisition
Published online: 27 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.01dek
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Dekydtspotter, Laurent, Mark Black, Rodica Frimu & Amber Rae Panwitz
2018.  In Meaning and Structure in Second Language Acquisition [Studies in Bilingualism, 55], ► pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo
Dekydtspotter, Laurent & Hyun-Kyoung Seo
2017. TRANSITIVITY IN THE PROCESSING OF INTRANSITIVE CLAUSES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39:3 ► pp. 527 ff. Crossref logo
HOPP, HOLGER
2016. The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics 37:5 ► pp. 1253 ff. Crossref logo
Hopp, Holger
2017. Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7:1 ► pp. 96 ff. Crossref logo
Mai, Ziyin
2016. L2 Chinese: Grammatical development and processing. Second Language Research 32:1 ► pp. 123 ff. Crossref logo
Martohardjono, Gita & Elaine C. Klein
2017.  In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ► pp. 653 ff. Crossref logo
OMAKI, AKIRA
2017. Linking learning and parsing in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20:4 ► pp. 706 ff. Crossref logo
Roberts, Leah, Jorge González Alonso, Christos Pliatsikas & Jason Rothman
2018. Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?. Second Language Research 34:1 ► pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo
Rothman, Jason & Roumyana Slabakova
2018. THE GENERATIVE APPROACH TO SLA AND ITS PLACE IN MODERN SECOND LANGUAGE STUDIES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:2 ► pp. 417 ff. Crossref logo
SLABAKOVA, ROUMYANA
2019. “L” Stands for Language. The Modern Language Journal 103 ► pp. 152 ff. Crossref logo
Soares, Ana Paula, Helena Oliveira, Marisa Ferreira, Montserrat Comesaña, António Filipe Macedo, Pilar Ferré, Carlos Acuña-Fariña, Juan Hernández-Cabrera, Isabel Fraga & Christina Manouilidou
2019. Lexico-syntactic interactions during the processing of temporally ambiguous L2 relative clauses: An eye-tracking study with intermediate and advanced Portuguese-English bilinguals. PLOS ONE 14:5 ► pp. e0216779 ff. Crossref logo
Sokolova & Slabakova
2019. L3 Sentence Processing: Language-Specific or Phenomenon-Sensitive?. Languages 4:3 ► pp. 54 ff. Crossref logo
Stone, Kate, Sol Lago & Daniel J. Schad
2020. Divergence point analyses of visual world data: applications to bilingual research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Stringer, David
2020. Not all acquisition entails attrition: The persistence of syntax in the teeth of lexical breakdown. Second Language Research 36:2 ► pp. 225 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit
2019. Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765831988411 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Adger, D.
(2003) Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., & Straub, K.
(2002) The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I.
(2000) Gender agreement in L2 French: Pre-advanced vs. advanced learners. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 225–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R.
(1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(2009) The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N.
(1995) Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 774–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E.
(1999) Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15(4), 337–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1975) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1995) The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F.
(2001) Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C.
(2006a) Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126. Crossref[ p. 160 ]Google Scholar
(2006b) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R., & Roberts, I.
(1993) A computational approach to language learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(2), 299–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, M.
(1996) Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2005) Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L.
(2001) The universal parser and interlanguage: Domain-specific mental organization in the comprehension of combien interrogatives in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17(2), 91–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, A. K.
(2013) Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29(3), 345–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Renaud, C.
(2009) On the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition: Uninterpretable gender on past participles in English-French processing. Second Language Research, 25(2), 251–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A.
(2006) The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In M. Grantham O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Sprouse, R. A.
(2003) L2 performance: Interlanguage representations, computations, and intuitions. In J. Liceras, & H. Zobl (Eds.), Proceedings of Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA6) (pp. 45–54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Wang, Y.-T., Kim, B., Kim, H.-J., Kim, H.-K., & Lee, J. K.
(2012) Anaphora under reconstruction during processing in English as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 561–590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R.
(2008) Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 501–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S.
(1985) More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1(1), 47–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) UG-generated knowledge in adult second language acquisition. In S. Flynn, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H.
(2012) The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 67–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L.
(2007) Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23(1), 9–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R., & Marinis, T.
(2003) The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489. Crossref[ p. 161 ]Google Scholar
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N.
(2009) The on-line application of binding principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 485–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V.
(2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M.
(1999) Good enough representations in visual cognition and language. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.
(1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000) The mind doesn’t work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D.
(1998) Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A.
(1994) The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(5), 407–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Garden path reanalysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort. In M. de Vincenzi, & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 21–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M.
(1973) Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 627–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L.
(2013a) Going beyond one’s current grammar. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
(2013b) Syntax in sentence processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 21–50). New-York: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr
(2011) Quantifiers undone: Reversing predictable speech errors in comprehension. Language, 87(1), 158–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J.
(1997) Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(1), 119–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E.
(1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 78(1), 1–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & T. Warren (Eds.), Image, language, and brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T.
(2004) Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7(1), 55–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G.
(2013) Sentence processing. New-York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M.
(2007) Syntactic parsing. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (1st ed., (pp. 289–307). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorrell, P.
(1995) Syntax and parsing. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. R.
(1996) The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie (Ed.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–81). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.[ p. 162 ] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 831–865). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H., & Ritter, E.
(2002) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78(3), 482–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R.
(2001) The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 21(2), 345–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G.
(2008) Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118(4), 595–612. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H.
(1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S.
(2003) Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J.
(2003) Verbs and rules: Two profiles of French morphology acquisition. Journal of French Language Studies, 13(1), 23–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H.
(2007) Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Crossref
(2010) Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901–931. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Individual differences in the L2 processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, S. H., & Lardiere, D.
(2013) Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research, 29(1), 57–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A.
(1998) Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14(4), 406–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21(2), 121–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M.
(1995) Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 483–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing research. Language Learning, 46(2), 286–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Rodríguez, G.
(2014) Second language sentence processing. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Love, T.
(2007) The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(4), 191–206. Crossref[ p. 163 ]Google Scholar
Love, T., & Swinney, D.
(1996) Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 5–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S.
(1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Wexler, K.
(1987) Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 413–444.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H.
(2005) Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 53墓78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, C. L.
(2008) Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 24(4), 459–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L.
(2006) Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. K.
(2011) Rethinking nonnative processing constraints: Evidence from L2 French. In L. Plonsky, & M. Schierloh (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum: Diverse contributions to SLA: Integrating the parts of a greater whole (pp. 109–120). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Monsell, S.
(1991) The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading. In D. Besner, & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 148–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F.
(2004) From data to theory: The overrepresentation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102(2), 139–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R.
(1998) Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H.
(2003) Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 501–528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B.
(2011) Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 563–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C.
(1996) Order and structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Crossref
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T.
(2012) Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 167–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L.
(2000) Missing surface inflection hypothesis or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2), 103–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B.
(1992) Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(2013) Locality. Lingua, 130, 169–186. Crossref[ p. 164 ]Google Scholar
Rizzi, L., & Roberts, I.
(1989) Complex inversion in French. Probus, 1(1), 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L.
(2013) Sentence processing in bilinguals. In R. P. G. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 221–246). New-York: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H.
(2007) Antecedent priming at trace positions in children’s sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(2), 175–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
(2003) Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 89(1), B1–B13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Assigning referents to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Experimental tests of binding theory. Cognitive Science, 30(1), 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D.
(1987) The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Crossref
(1999) Let’s make up your mind: “Special nativist” perspectives on language, modularity of mind, and nonnative language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 635–655. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Gubala-Ryzak, M.
(1992) Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8(1), 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse R. A.
(1994) Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra, & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J.
(1993) Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M.
(2004) In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102(3), 255–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, S. M.
(1986) An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Shimanskaya, E., & Slabakova, R.
(2014) Re-assembling objects: A new look at the L2 acquisition of pronominal clitics. In Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 38. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2008) Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, R. A.
(2006) Transfer and relexification: Second language acquisition and Creole genesis. In C. Lefebvre, L. White, & C. Jourdan (Eds.), L2 acquisition and Creole genesis: Dialogue (pp. 169–181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P.
(2003) The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C.
(2003) Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 740–759. Crossref[ p. 165 ]Google Scholar
Truscott, J.
(1998) Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M.
(1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M.
(2007) The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2), 215–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Mastropavlou, M.
(2007) Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 142–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Roussou, A.
(1991) Parameter-resetting in L2? University College London Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–170.Google Scholar
Van Geert, P.
(1994) Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L.
(2006) Symbolic models of human sentence processing. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 410–419). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M., & McElree, B.
(2011) Memory for linguistic features: Evidence from the dynamics of agreement. Available from http://​dl​.dropbox​.com​/u​/3840089​/WagersMcElree​.2011​.Agreement​.pdf CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. M.
(1987) Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In T. Roeper, & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, L.
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N.
(2006) Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 71–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C.
(2001) Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 509–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar