Beyond the critical period : Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners

By J. McDonald. 2006

438 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c1b7d1ae280ad1e4db463886ea93eb88a1e48880

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

Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing (2012, methodology): “Because the word detection task involved the recognition of words in complete sentences, McDonald (2006) suggested that it may have involved too much syntactic knowledge to be a good measure of processing speed alone.”
Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural distance (2014, background): “…et al. (2010) interpret the absence of a LAN for across-phrase violations in their L1 English group as evidence that the distance between the agreeing elements affects processing, due to a limitation in the cognitive resources required for more taxing dependencies (e.g. McDonald, 2006).”
Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability (2013, background): “…inflectional variability that attribute problems with inflection in very advanced late L2 acquisition to lower processing resources in non-natives compared to natives which constrain L2ers in consistently accessing and computing the appropriate inflection in real time (Hopp, 2010; McDonald, 2006).”
Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking ☆ (2012, positive): “It is an open question, indeed, whether the differences we found across eyetracking and ERPs are truly the result of lesser working memory in the L2, as suggested by some (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; McDonald, 2006) or if indeed the two methodologies in fact tap into different types of processing.”
Morphologically Complex Words in L1 and L2 Processing: Evidence from Masked Priming Experiments in English. (2008, result): “Furthermore, it has been found that the performance of native speakers under noise or memory stress conditions in a speeded grammaticality judgment task was parallel to that of adult L2 learners without these stressors (McDonald, 2006).”
Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition (2010, methodology): “…as a turning point in early literature (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967) and it has been used in some recent studies (e.g., Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; McDonald, 2006), a number of studies by researchers with otherwise very different views on age issues, for example, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994),…”
The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development (2018, methodology): “Another factor posited to play a role in L2 acquisition is a learner’s ability to simultaneously process and store information, that is, an individual’s working memory (WM; e.g. McDonald, 2006; Williams, 2012).”
AGE OF ONSET AND NATIVELIKE L2 ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT OF MORPHOSYNTACTIC AND PHONETIC INTUITION (2012, background): “…nearnative intuitions and between near-native and clearly nonnative intuitions as well as between different degrees of near-nativeness, and this test can therefore be seen as a guarantee against conclusions based on underanalyzed data (see Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008 , 2009 ; McDonald, 2006 ).”
The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance* (2009, background): “Similarly, McDonald (2006) claims that shortages in L2 processing capacity, e.g. in working memory, lexical decoding ability and speed, may in part underlie non-convergence even in offline judgements.”
Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints (2011, background): “Evidence for this comes from a cross-modal priming study by Nicol and Swinney (1989), who found that upon encountering a reflexive in sentences such as The boxer told the skier that the doctor for the team would blame himself for the recent injury, participants would mentally reactivate the accessib”
Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction (2010, background): “Similarly, working memory, and declarative memory decay with aging and older learners have more processing load compared to early learners because of their limited perception and memory skills (McDonald, 2006).”
Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, background): “…the resolution of attachment ambiguities than L1 speakers, a finding that might not be expected under capacity-based approaches to L1/L2 differences (McDonald, 2006; Hopp, 2006, 2010) or the hypothesis that L2 speakers have difficulty integrating information from syntax and other domains (Sorace,…”
Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition (2016, background): “Previous research on L2 inflectional variability that sought to emulate L2-like performance in native speakers relied on task manipulations that put natives under increased processing pressure by speeding up stimulus presentation, restricting response times and/ or degrading the stimulus (e.g. Hopp,”
Morphological Structure in Native and Nonnative Language Processing (2010, background): “So how are these results to be interpreted? Although domain-general factors such as poor decoding ability, slower processing speed, or computational resource limitations (McDonald, 2006) undeniably play a role in L2 processing, they do not by themselves provide a full explanation for the observed L1”
SOME NOTES ON THE SHALLOW STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS (2017, background): “L2 processing may be more demanding in terms of general cognitive resources than processing one’s native language, resulting in less automatic processing (e.g., McDonald, 2006).”