Memory retrieval and sentence processing: Differences between native and non-native speakers

ABUTALEBI, JUBIN; CLAHSEN, HARALD · 2017 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1017/s136672891700027x

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper serves as an introduction to a special issue of *Bilingualism: Language and Cognition* focused on the differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing. The central research problem addresses the ongoing controversy regarding the nature of these differences. While some researchers argue that L1 and L2 processing are fundamentally similar, with observed disparities stemming from peripheral factors like working memory limitations or slower processing speeds, others posit substantial structural differences. A prominent alternative view is the Shallow-Structure Hypothesis (SSH), which suggests that L2 processing relies less on full grammatical parsing and more on surface-form information compared to L1 processing. The text reviews a keynote article by Cunnings (2017a), which proposes a novel theoretical framework to explain these differences. Cunnings adopts psycholinguistic models that view comprehension as skilled memory retrieval. He attributes non-native-like processing patterns in late bilinguals to an increased susceptibility to retrieval interference during memory access. This perspective shifts the focus from structural deficits in grammar to difficulties in cue-based memory retrieval. The paper highlights that this proposal generated significant academic engagement, eliciting 16 commentaries from experts in experimental psycholinguistics and bilingualism research. The findings presented in this introduction summarize the critical responses to Cunnings’ proposal. Commentators generally applaud the attempt to derive non-native comprehension specifics from memory retrieval difficulties. However, several concerns were raised. Some experts argue that Cunnings’ account lacks explicitness and that core notions require clarification. Others contend that the proposal may exceed current empirical support or fail to explain certain attested L1/L2 differences that are difficult to account for via interference alone. Methodological concerns were also noted, including the potential influence of L2 on L1 skills and the role of individual differences in proficiency. Additionally, commentators pointed out that Cunnings’ model may be compatible with alternative accounts, such as the SSH, Sorace’s Interface Hypothesis, or Ullman’s Declarative/Procedural Model. The significance of this collection lies in its contribution to linking psycholinguistics, memory research, and bilingualism studies. Cunnings’ response to the commentaries includes a discussion of recent findings that challenge the interference account and lays out specific predictions for future studies. These predictions aim to determine the extent to which L1/L2 processing differences are due to memory interference versus shallow parsing. The authors conclude that this exchange represents a promising attempt to deepen the understanding of the mechanisms underlying native and non-native language processing, offering a fresh perspective on how memory retrieval models can explain bilingual sentence comprehension.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• cognitive capacity variation