Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 Processing

Silvina Andrea Montrul, Darren Scott Tanner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Cunnings' keynote article outlines a novel approach to native/non-native differences in on-line language comprehension by proposing that L2 speakers are more susceptible to cue-based retrieval interference than natives. Cue-based, parallel access approaches to processing have been prominent in monolingual studies for around 15 years now, but have barely been applied to L2/bilingual processing. We are particularly excited about the possibilities that this approach offers for understanding L1, L2 and bilingual processing, as well as individual differences. In this commentary, we focus on two issues: 1) whether the existing evidence for cue-based retrial mechanisms in L2 processing support a deficit model, as Cunnings seems to claim, and 2) how individual differences may explain both similarities and differences in L1 and L2 processing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)704-705
Number of pages2
JournalBilingualism
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

interference
deficit
comprehension
language
evidence
Interference
Individual Differences
Cunning
Bilingual Processing
Language Comprehension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 Processing. / Montrul, Silvina Andrea; Tanner, Darren Scott.

In: Bilingualism, Vol. 20, No. 4, 01.08.2017, p. 704-705.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Montrul, Silvina Andrea ; Tanner, Darren Scott. / Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 Processing. In: Bilingualism. 2017 ; Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 704-705.
@article{eed946e8c8ef4b34956c84fac3773dae,
title = "Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 Processing",
abstract = "Cunnings' keynote article outlines a novel approach to native/non-native differences in on-line language comprehension by proposing that L2 speakers are more susceptible to cue-based retrieval interference than natives. Cue-based, parallel access approaches to processing have been prominent in monolingual studies for around 15 years now, but have barely been applied to L2/bilingual processing. We are particularly excited about the possibilities that this approach offers for understanding L1, L2 and bilingual processing, as well as individual differences. In this commentary, we focus on two issues: 1) whether the existing evidence for cue-based retrial mechanisms in L2 processing support a deficit model, as Cunnings seems to claim, and 2) how individual differences may explain both similarities and differences in L1 and L2 processing.",
author = "Montrul, {Silvina Andrea} and Tanner, {Darren Scott}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S136672891600095X",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "704--705",
journal = "Bilingualism: Language and Cognition",
issn = "1366-7289",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 Processing

AU - Montrul, Silvina Andrea

AU - Tanner, Darren Scott

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Cunnings' keynote article outlines a novel approach to native/non-native differences in on-line language comprehension by proposing that L2 speakers are more susceptible to cue-based retrieval interference than natives. Cue-based, parallel access approaches to processing have been prominent in monolingual studies for around 15 years now, but have barely been applied to L2/bilingual processing. We are particularly excited about the possibilities that this approach offers for understanding L1, L2 and bilingual processing, as well as individual differences. In this commentary, we focus on two issues: 1) whether the existing evidence for cue-based retrial mechanisms in L2 processing support a deficit model, as Cunnings seems to claim, and 2) how individual differences may explain both similarities and differences in L1 and L2 processing.

AB - Cunnings' keynote article outlines a novel approach to native/non-native differences in on-line language comprehension by proposing that L2 speakers are more susceptible to cue-based retrieval interference than natives. Cue-based, parallel access approaches to processing have been prominent in monolingual studies for around 15 years now, but have barely been applied to L2/bilingual processing. We are particularly excited about the possibilities that this approach offers for understanding L1, L2 and bilingual processing, as well as individual differences. In this commentary, we focus on two issues: 1) whether the existing evidence for cue-based retrial mechanisms in L2 processing support a deficit model, as Cunnings seems to claim, and 2) how individual differences may explain both similarities and differences in L1 and L2 processing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988734599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988734599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S136672891600095X

DO - 10.1017/S136672891600095X

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84988734599

VL - 20

SP - 704

EP - 705

JO - Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

JF - Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

SN - 1366-7289

IS - 4

ER -