Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing

By Holger Hopp. 2006

213 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3bc435a5e777520e9ee3c1729297a9d9f0f8388b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, background): “…in the L1 and L2 made by the SSH, others argue that L1 and L2 sentence processing is fundamentally similar, and maintain that purported differences result from inefficient lexical access routines or from an increased burden on capacity-limited cognitive resources (McDonald, 2006; Hopp, 2006, 2010).”
Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers (2010, background): “Studies have provided converging evidence that proficiency in the L2 often interacts with linguistic aspects of the input in producing a parsing outcome (e.g. for the effect of proficiency on the extent to which L2 learners utilize structural cues, see Kilborn, 1992; Frenck-Mestre, 1997; Frenck-Mest”
Processing Subject-Object Ambiguities in the L2: A Self-Paced Reading Study With German L2 Learners of Dutch (2009, methodology): “Hopp (2006) used word-by-word self-paced reading followed by a truth value judgment task to test English and Dutch L2 learners of German.”
Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap* (2012, background): “There is strong evidence that L2 proficiency is an important factor for L2 syntactic processing (Frenck-Mestre, 2002; Hahne, 2001; Hopp, 2006; Jackson, 2008) and there is also some evidence that L2 learners’ WM capacity can influence their realtime L2 syntactic processing (Dussias & Piñar, 2010;…”
Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints (2011, background): “…processing differences have been attributed to general cognitive factors such as slower L2 processing speed or the increased computational resource demands associated with processing a nonnative language (e.g., McDonald, 2006) or to a lack of proficiency and/or L1 influence (e.g., Hopp, 2006).”
Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English (2013, methodology): “…the past simple items analyses were run on the segment in which the inflected verb was presented, as well as the three following segments (verb+1, verb+2, verb+3) to catch any spillover effects (see other reading time studies with L2 learners, e.g. Hopp, 2006; Marinis et al., 2005; Roberts, 2003).”
Morphological Structure in Native and Nonnative Language Processing (2010, result): “The results from a reading-based grammaticality judgment task in L2 German (Hopp, 2006), in contrast, showed that participants had more difficulty recognizing case errors than SV number agreement errors under time pressure.”
The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance* (2009, background): “Yet other L2 processing studies, however, do find L1 effects on the L2 processing of morphosyntax (see Frenck-Mestre, 2002; Hopp, 2006), suggesting that some L1 properties inform L2 processing.”
Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing (2012, methodology): “…in experiments that require them to use agreement morphology in sentence processing (e.g., Havik, Roberts, Van Hout, Schreuder, & Haverkort, 2009; Hopp, 2006, 2010), and recent ERP studies have even reported that very advanced L2 learners can detect agreement violations in a qualitatively…”