Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T01:51:08.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The usability of syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

Sergey Avrutin
Sergey Avrutin
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Clahsen and Felser's article (CF) is an important contribution to the field of psycholinguistics in several respects. First, it draws attention to the importance of a better understanding of the processing mechanisms utilized by child and adult language learners. Differences in these mechanisms may be responsible for the final outcome of the acquisition process. Second, the article provides an excellent summary of current first language (L1) and second language (L2) research on processing. A variety of studies, ranging from morphological off-line investigations to on-line research on syntactic development, are reviewed in a concise and accurate manner; the cross-linguistic dimension of the article makes both the review and the argument even more comprehensive and convincing. Third, based on their own experimental results, and the results from other studies, the authors propose a novel account of L2 processing, the so-called shallow syntax hypothesis (SSH).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 43 - 46
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akmajan A. 1984. Sentence type and form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 1– 23.Google Scholar
Avrutin S. 1999. Development of the syntax–discourse interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Avrutin S. 2000. Comprehension of D-linked and non-D-linked wh-questions by children and Broca's aphasics. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney, (Eds.), Language and the brain (pp. 295– 313). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Avrutin S. 2006. Weak syntax. In Y. Grodzinsky & K. Amunts (Eds.), Broca's region. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cinque G. 1990. Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Vincenzi M. 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Haegeman L. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries: On the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua, 9, 157– 199.Google Scholar
Hickok G., & Avrutin S. 1995. Representation, referentiality, and processing in agrammatic comprehension: Two case studies. Brain and Language, 50, 10– 26.Google Scholar
Pesetsky D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reuland E. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439– 492.Google Scholar
Rizzi L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ruigendijk E., Avrutin S., & Vasic S. 2005. Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choose between theoretical approaches. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ruigendijk E., Baauw S., Zuckerman S., Vasic N., de Lange M. J., & Avrutin S. 2006. A cross-linguistic study on the interpretation of pronouns by children and agrammatic speakers: Evidence from Dutch, Spanish and Italian. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Shapiro L. 2000. Some recent investigations of gap filling in normal listeners: Implications for normal and disordered language processing. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney (Eds.), Language and the brain (pp. 357– 376). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stowell T. 1999. C-command effects in newspaper headlines. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.