Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Second Language Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eubank, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Sentence matching and processing in L2 development

Lynn Eubank

University of North Texas

The processing strategies described in Clahsen (1984) to explain the develop ment of German word order make predictions that can be tested ex perimentally. Clahsen's Initialization/Finalization Strategy (IFS) in particular predicts that uninverted, ADV-SVO sentences will exact less cost in terms of processing than inverted, ADV-VSO sentences, even though inverted sent ences are grammatical in the target language and uninverted sentences are ungrammatical. The experimental means employed to test this prediction is the Sentence Matching (SM) procedure described originally in Freedman and Forster (1985). In the SM procedure, response times are elicited for particular types of sentences by measuring the time (in msec.) it takes for subjects to determine whether two sentences presented by computer are identical or different.

The results of one of the experiments reported here show that inverted sentences result in significantly shorter response times than uninverted sentences for non-native speakers. This finding directly contradicts the IFS-derived prediction. However, further experimental work reported here indicates that native speakers do not respond at all to the inverted-uninverted contrast. The rest of the article thus seeks to explain this somewhat surprising finding. The proposed explanation also suggests that natives and non-natives may process sentences in the SM task in rather different ways.

Second Language Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 253-280 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/026765839300900303


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
S. M. Gass
Sentence matching: a re-examination
Second Language Research, October 1, 2001; 17(4): 421 - 441.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
N. Duffield and L. White
Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies
Second Language Research, April 1, 1999; 15(2): 133 - 160.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
J. Paradis, M. Le Corre, and F. Genesee
The emergence of tense and agreement in child L2 French
Second Language Research, July 1, 1998; 14(3): 227 - 256.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
L. White and F. Genesee
How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition
Second Language Research, July 1, 1996; 12(3): 233 - 265.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
H. Clahsen and U. Hong
Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: new evidence from reaction-time experiments
Second Language Research, February 1, 1995; 11(1): 57 - 87.
[Abstract] [PDF]