Discussion of the SSH

In the following section, some studies will be presented that do or do not support the assumptions made by the SSH. Juffs (2004) compared the processing of garden path structures like (106) to non-garden path structures like (107) and to a mild-garden path structure like (108) in L2 speakers with different L1s.

(106) After the children cleaned the house looked very neat and tidy (107) When the student arrived the professor asked her about her trip (108) The doctor knew the nurse liked the man from England

68

The grammaticality judgement task revealed that L2 speakers were different from L1 speakers. The reading study showed that the processing of both the garden path and non-garden path structures posed processing difficulties for L2 speakers. For both L1 and L2 speakers, reading patterns were alike for the (mild-) garden path structure and different for the non-garden path structure, where L2 speakers needed more time reading it. Juffs (2004) concluded that the processing of garden path structures was more costly than that of non-garden path structures for both L1 and L2 speakers, and that processing was slower and less accurate. Moreover, Juffs (2004) made the point that all verbs independent of transitive (garden path structure) or intransitive (non-garden path structure) evoked a garden path effect.

By comparing the results, Juffs (2004) came to the conclusion, that the grammaticality judgement task did not show the distinction between structures, but that the reading study did.

Juffs’ (β004) study furthermore showed that L2 speakers did not always process shallowly, but rather like L1 speakers, even though at a more slowly rate. It seemed that the processing of sentences in the L2 is more demanding than in an L1 and that L2 speakers cautiously process each structure step by step. Juffs’ (β004) study can serve as partial support for the SSH, as it showed that in sentence processing L2 speakers were different from L1 speakers.

However, this seems not always to be the case.

Partial overlap in processing between L1 and L2 speakers has also been attested by Rossi, Gugler, Friederici and Hahne (2006). They investigated whether L2 speakers with a high proficiency in the L2 showed the same ERP pattern as L1 speakers, and whether they differed from low proficiency speakers while hearing sentences with a category error such as (109) or an agreement error (110) or a combined category-agreement error like (111).

(109) Der Junge im singt ein Lied The boy in sings a song

(110) Der Junge im Kindergarten singst ein Lied The boy in the Kindergarden sing2pers. a song (111) Der Junge im singst ein Lied

The boy in sing2pers. a song

The ERP results showed that highly proficient L2 speakers resembled L1 speakers in so far as both groups showed the same neural response in processing a category error. These were an early anterior negativity, which the authors interpreted as reflecting phrase structure building,

69 an additional negativity reflecting the processing of reference-related information and a late positivity for the reanalysis processes. The low proficiency group showed effects that were delayed and reduced in amplitude, which was interpreted by the authors as reanalysis problems, which could be caused by the reduced availability of resources to reanalyse. The highly proficient L2 group, compared to the L1 group, showed larger amplitudes for the additional negativity and the late positive effect, but not for the early anterior negativity, which the authors interpreted as indication that L2 speakers needed more resources for processing. The ERP pattern for the agreement error was the same for the highly proficient L2 and the L1 speakers, but the low proficiency group showed delayed positive effects indicating that they had problems initiating the process of reanalysis. The combined category-agreement error elicited the same effects as were found for the category error with the low proficiency L2 group, again showing a delayed and reduced late positive effect. The study of Rossi et al.

(2006) can serve as an indication that it is in principle possible for L2 speakers to process sentences in the same way as L1 speakers, if the proficiency level is high. High proficiency seems to overrule shallow parsing.

Proficiency is an important factor in L2 processing was also supported by the study of McLaughlin, Tanner, Pitkänen, Frenck-Mestre, Inoue, Valentine and Osterhout (2010). They came to the conclusion that highly proficient Lβ speakers’ brain responses resemble that of L1 speakers. L2 speakers with a low proficiency level showed different brain responses compared to the former groups. The studies of Rossi et al. (2006) and McLaughlin et al.

(2010) hence only partially give support for the SSH. The SSH does not incorporate proficiency as a factor and does not assume that L2 speakers can process sentences like L1 speakers anyway. The pattern of the low proficiency L2 group is in accordance with the SSH.

The article of Clahsen and Felser (2006) is a keynote article that was reviewed by some researchers and the reviews were put together in an article Commentaries (2006) consisting of criticism and questions. Some of the criticism and questions made will now be presented.

Dowens and Carreiras (2006) asked the question what the SSH predicts with regard to balanced bilinguals and they further critizised – as did Frenck-Mestre (2006) and Libben (2006) – the limited scope of the article (Clahsen and Felser, 2006), since it only presented studies concerned with morphosyntax, ambiguity resolution and syntactic dependencies.

Ullman (2006) also criticized the limited scope of the SSH, as the SSH is only a representational model which limits its range of influence. Another critic of the limited scope of the SSH is Sabourin (2006), who argued that the factor of proficiency should be accounted

70

for in the sense that she would like to have acknowledged the factor proficiency. This criticism is shared by Libben (2006), who also would like transfer and age of acquisition considered as important factors. Steinhauer (2006) recommended the necessity to include factors like first exposure of the L2, the relative use of the L2 compared to the L1, and a variety of sociocultural factors. Sabourin (2006) further argued that the differences between L1 and L2 speakers could indeed be the result of an incomplete knowledge of the L2 grammar, cognitive limitations or interference from the L1. Clahsen and Felser (2006) rejected any of these possibilities, but Sabourin (2006) pointed out that studies (for example Sabourin, 2003) have shown that these factors do play a role. Ullman (2001) emphasized that the SSH neglects the role of experience with the L2 as a key factor giving access to proceduralization. Sabourin (2006) and Libben (2006) made the point that highly proficient L2 speakers should show an in depth and detailed representation of syntactic structure like L1 speakers. This means, that L2 processing is not shallow and that it is in a hierarchical structure, just as in L1 speakers.

Dowens and Carreiras (2006) asked why L2 speakers can make use of morphosyntactic information but still show shallow processing in the field of syntax. Duffield (2006) raised the question whether a disruption in representation (shallow versus full parsing) is due to the grammar or the processing system. Sorace (2006) further raised the question if shallow processing is restricted to particular domains of language because these domains are more complex. She also asked if shallow processing takes different forms. Sorace (2006) pointed out that interfaces between syntax and other domains seem to be quite vulnerable, a notion which is not captured by the SSH. Moreover, Steinhauer (2006) argued that morphology may well be complex and therefore its processing might also be shallow in L2 speakers. Steinhauer (2006) claimed that subject-verb agreement and inflectional morphology are examples of complex morphology, which could serve as a demonstration of shallow processing in L2 speakers. Similarly, Frenck-Mastre (2006), Juffs (2006) and Sekerina and Brooks (2006) argued that based on the studies reviewed by Clahsen and Felser (2006) that one cannot say with certainty, that Lβ speakers’ processing is shallow, as it resembles that of L1 speakers. L1 speakers are also shown to apply non-syntactic strategies. Along the same lines, Sekerina and Brooks (2006) pointed out that L1 representation is not only hierarchical structure building but that sometimes representations are “good enough”. This argument of a “good-enough”

type of processing might stem from Ferreira (2003), who proposed the GE hypothesis to sentene comprehension presented earlier. Contrary to the SSH, Ferreira (2003) also assumes shallow processing to be available for L1 speakers. In line with Sekerina and Brooks (2006),

71 Sorace (2006) asked if shallow processing is the sole option in L2 processing and if so, under which circumstances could it be possible for L2 speakers to process the L2 in greater depth. A similar question was put forward by Traxler (2006). Traxler (2006) asked when exactly such minimal strategies (shallow parsing) apply and when- and in how far – differences in lexical knowledge and cognitive resources affect the way of processing.

Ullman (2006) wanted to know why and to what extend L1-like grammatical processing is missing in L2 speakers. Ullman (2006) argued, that the SSH is a mere replication of the DP model, as it draws on chunking and lexical-semantic structure, which is already implemented into the DP-model. Ullman (2006) rectifies that his DP-model does not rule out the possibility of L1-like processing in L2 speakers. This could be achieved with a high proficiency in the L2. Moreover, Clahsen and Felser (2006) criticized that Ullman (2001) describes the access to the procedural system as less available for L2 speakers. Ullman (2006) counters that the SSH is also vague in its terminology.

Clahsen and Felser (2006a) responded to the criticism they received on their SSH. They again argue that the studies they reviewed do not give any support for the assumption that transfer and proficiency play any important role and provide evidence with the study of Papadopoulou and Clahsen (β00γ). They also criticize Sabourin’s (β00γ) study as from that study it is not really clear if proficiency or transfer affected the German group’s sensitivity with regard to the Dutch gender system. They put forward a last comment: There are only a few studies providing evidence for transfer in the field of morpho-syntactic processing.

Clahsen and Felser (2006) originally mentioned, that L2 speakers process syntax shallowly even though they have sufficient grammatical knowledge. In 2006a article, the authors argue somewhat differently. They say, that shallow processing is the result of insufficient grammatical knowledge of the L2. In essence, L2 speakers could process L1-like. Shallow processing is used in L2 speakers in combination with metalinguistic knowledge, world knowledge and associative abilities. It could be argued, that with a high proficiency in the L2, grammatical knowledge is present, that enables L2 speakers to process L1-like. This is not denied anymore by Clahsen and Felser (2006a). However, they do not swift away from their assumption that L2 speakers are not able to process L1-like. This is an option that should be possible only for some L2 speakers with a high proficiency level. Still, Clahsen and Felser (2006a) think that L1-like processing is possible for L2 speakers. Nevertheless, it remains restricted to local domains of language.

72

Clahsen and Felser (2006) were also criticized for the limited scope of their model. Their answer is that their SSH is a purely psycholinguistic model leaving questions such as localisation of language – among others – unanswered.

To summarize, two models of language representation have been presented, which both share the assumption that lexical knowledge does not pose any problems in L2 speakers, but the models also differ from each other in their assumptions about the problems concerning grammar in L2 speakers. The DP-model assumes a problem with the representation of grammar in general, but this model does not exclude the possibility that practice and a high proficiency in the L2 can lead to L1-like mastery of grammar. The SSH is somewhat more limited in its prediction about the problems concerning grammar in L2 speakers in the sense that it assumes a failure in representing syntax exclusively. In contrast to the DP-model, the SSH denies the possibility of L1-like competence almost exclusively. Ullman (2001) assumed that L1-like competence could be achieved as a result of a high proficiency in L2.

Additionally, the scope of the DP-model is broader than that of the SSH, as the latter is solely a representational model of language. In contrast, the DP-model is concerned with the representation, localization and processing of language.