1
The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing
Holger Hopp
Technische Universität Braunschweig
Abstract
This paper explores the consequences of the language-integrated nature of the bilingual
mental lexicon for L2 sentence processing. It reviews L2 processing studies on gender
agreement and syntactic structure building that test whether delays and cross-linguistic
influence in lexical processing of the L2 lead to differences between L2 and L1 sentence
processing. Slower L2 lexical processing delays and attenuates effects of syntactic structure in
L2 sentence processing. In addition, cross-linguistic lexical influence can engender non-target
patterns in L2 compared to L1 sentence processing. The paper spells out the assumptions and
predictions of the Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis, and I discuss how its insights can be
incorporated into current models of L2 sentence processing.
1. Introduction
Research on L2 sentence processing uses on-line methods to study how L2 learners
incrementally build syntactic structure and derive interpretation in real-time comprehension.
Studying the dynamics of the human processing mechanism, i.e. the parser, in L2
comprehension gives insights into whether the parser employs comparable processing
strategies as in the L1 and whether L2 users recruit the same types of grammatical and non-
linguistic knowledge in sentence comprehension as monolinguals do (for review, see Roberts,
2013). Beyond revealing the dynamics of sentence processing in an L2, L2 processing
2
research holds the promise of elucidating whether the persistent problems adult L2 learners
have in mastering L2 morphosyntax are in part caused or magnified by difficulties in
processing L2 grammatical information in a target-like manner.
Several approaches to L2 sentence processing indeed propose that non-target sentence
comprehension among L2 learners follows from differences between L2 learners and
monolinguals in parsing. For instance, L2 learners may overrely on non-syntactic information,
e.g. lexical, discourse or frequency information in parsing (e.g. the Shallow Structure
Hypothesis, Clahsen & Felser, 2006, 2017; Cunnings, 2017). Other types of models, e.g.
Sorace’s Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011) and capacity models of L2 processing
(McDonald, 2006; Hopp, 2010) claim that bilinguals fail to integrate multiple information
types as efficiently as monolinguals do in real-time sentence processing.
The present paper adopts a different perspective on non-target L2 sentence processing.
It explores the possibility that some aspects of non-target L2 parsing may not follow from any
differences between L2 and L1 sentence processing; rather, they may be the consequence of
the architecture of the processing system, in particular, the characteristics of the bilingual
mental lexicon. Since lexical processing partly precedes and feeds into syntactic processing,
key characteristics of bilingual lexical processing may cause aspects of non-target parsing that
have so far been interpreted as signatures of qualitative differences between L1 and L2
sentence processing.
Research on bilingual word recognition and production found that bilingual lexical
representations are interconnected across languages and accessed non-language selectively
(for review, see Tokowicz, 2015). In this paper, I am going to explore the consequences of
these aspects of the bilingual mental lexicon for L2 sentence processing. Specifically, I will
give a selective overview of some recent studies on L2 sentence processing that have
addressed relations between lexical processing and L2 sentence processing. I will suggest that
3
explicit attention to lexical processing needs to be part and parcel of any approach to L2
sentence processing.
In my review, I will focus on two areas of sentence processing in which pronounced
differences have been reported between adult L2 and monolingual processing, i.e.
grammatical gender and building hierarchical structural relations. For each area, I discuss
studies that have systematically considered how bilingual lexical processing gives rise to non-
target sentence processing. The paper concludes with a general consideration of the role of
lexical processing in sentence comprehension, it presents the Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis
and sketches how this hypothesis can be integrated into current models of L2 sentence
processing.
2. The Bilingual mental lexicon
Experimental investigations of the bilingual mental lexicon marked the beginning of
psycholinguistic research on bilingual language processing (for review, see Kroll & Tokowicz
2005). Initial research address the issue whether bilinguals had two separate or one shared
lexicon(s) for each of their languages by comparing the recognition and production of
language-particular versus language-ambiguous word forms, e.g. cognates or interlingual
homographs. Subsequently, attention shifted to studying the dynamics of lexical retrieval or
activation. Research on bilingual word recognition and production uncovered two major
aspects in which the dynamics of L1 and L2 lexical processing differ: (A) Lexical retrieval is
slower and is associated with larger frequency effects in L2 than in L1 processing; (b) lexical
access is non-language-selective in that bilinguals activate lexical representations across
languages in production and comprehension.
Evidence of slower lexical retrieval comes from the comprehension and production of
language-particular word forms, i.e. L2-only words, in bilinguals. For instance, in lexical
4
decision tasks, L2 speakers react more slowly than monolingual speakers, and they make
more decision errors (e.g. Lemhöfer, Dijkstra, Schriefers, Baayen, Grainger, & Zwitserlood,
2008). Similarly, in picture naming, L2 speakers show a larger number of retrieval errors, e.g.,
false starts, tip-of-the-tongue effects and slips of the tongue (Kroll & Hermans, 2011). Slower
lexical retrieval among L2 learners also obtains in sentence contexts, i.e. when they produce
or read sentences (for production, e.g., Runnqvist, Gollan, Costa, & Ferreira, 2013; for
reading, Gollan, Slattery,Goldenberg, van Assche, Duyck, & Rayner, 2011). On top of being
generally slower than monolinguals, L2 speakers also demonstrate larger frequency effects in
that L2 readers slow down disproportionately more on low-frequency words compared to
monolingual readers. The Weaker Links hypothesis (Gollan, Montoya, Cera, & Sandoval,
2008) or Frequency-lag hypothesis (Gollan et al., 2011; see also Kroll & Gollan, 2014)
interprets slower lexical retrieval in bilinguals as a direct consequence of the lower frequency
with which bilinguals access word forms in each language (see also Segalowitz & Segalowitz,
1993). Since bilinguals speak and understand each of their languages relatively less often than
monolinguals, they activate word forms less often than monolinguals do, which, in turn,
results in slower lexical retrieval. The effects of weaker lexical links are magnified for low-
frequency items. The frequency lag in bilingual word recognition correlates with language
proficiency reflecting exposure to and use of the L2 (Diependaele, Lemhöfer, & Brysbaert,
2013). Indeed, the size of frequency effects of word recognition in bilingual reading relates to
relative use of the respective language, irrespective of whether bilinguals read in the L1 or the
L2 (Whitford & Titone, 2012). In conjunction, these findings show that links between word
forms, lemma and conceptual representations are strengthened through use which leads to
greater automatization in lexical processing.
Evidence of non-selective lexical access comes from research on word forms that are
ambiguous between languages, i.e. cognates like English–German film. Even when a task is in
the L1 or L2 only, L2 speakers, yet not monolinguals, process cognate words faster compared
5
to lexically matched language-particular word forms (e.g., movie). By contrast, interlingual
homographs (false friends) which share form, yet not meaning across languages are associated
with slowdowns (e.g., Libben & Titone, 2009). Cognate facilitation and homograph inhibition
indicate that lexical representations are activated across all languages of a bilingual even
when only one language is being used. Current models of the bilingual mental lexicon, e.g.
the Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus (BIA+) model (Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002),
accommodate these effects by postulating that there is a single integrated lexicon and that
context, e.g. the language of the task, does not affect early stages of word recognition. Indeed,
when cognates or interlingual homographs are embedded in sentences presented exclusively
in the L1 (e.g., Van Assche, Duyck, Hartsuiker & Diependaele, 2009; Titone, Libben,
Mercier, Whitford & Pivneva, 2011) or the L2 (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Duyck, Van
Assche, Drieghe & Hartsuiker, 2007; Libben & Titone, 2009, Van Assche, Drieghe, Duyck,
Welvaert & Hartsuiker, 2011), bilinguals continue to show cognate facilitation or homograph
inhibition effects. Hence, cross-linguistic lexical activation perseveres even if the sentence
context signals that the other language is irrelevant. The strength of cognate effects is affected
by proficiency. More advanced L2 learners evince less cognate facilitation (e.g. Libben &
Titone, 2009), yet even highly proficient L2 readers continue to process cognates faster than
control words in the L1 and the L2 (see Titone et al., 2011; van Hell & Tanner, 2012). In
conjunction, these findings of differential processing of cognates and interlingual homographs
compared to language-particular words indicate that lexical representations are activated non-
language selectively across proficiency stages of bilingualism even when bilinguals read or
process in a single-language context. In sum, research on bilingual word recognition
demonstrates that weaker links lead to slower lexical processing and larger frequency effects
in the L2 and that cross-linguistic activation leads to different patterns of lexical activation in
bilingual compared to monolingual processing.
6
In the real-time comprehension of sentences, aspects of lexical processing subserve
parsing, since lexical information is relevant for agreement processing and structure building.
Models of (monolingual) sentence processing differ in the status they ascribe to lexical
information in parsing. They range from the Garden-Path model (e.g. Frazier, 1987), in which
lexical information in parsing is initially largely limited to word class, to lexicalist constraint-
based models (e.g. MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994), according to which all
aspects of lexical information guide and inform parsing.
Under any account, lexical processing in bilinguals may impact parsing in quantitative
and qualitative ways. First, lexical processing might cause additive delays in that, e.g., slower
lexical retrieval will cause slower syntactic processing. Second, lexical processing might
interact with parsing in that slower lexical retrieval and cross-linguistic lexical activation
cause different syntactic processing patterns.
In the following sections, I summarize a growing body of research that addresses the
consequences of lexical processing in the bilingual mental lexicon for L2 sentence processing.
I focus on sentence comprehension, although work on sentence production, especially priming
studies in the framework of the Shared Syntax Model (Hartsuiker & Pickering, 2008), also
assess lexical and syntactic cross-linguistic interactions. In both primed and unprimed
sentence production, lexical overlap and L1 lexical frequency have been found to affect L2
sentence production (for review, Jackson, Massaro, & Hopp, 2017). I first turn to agreement
processing of grammatical gender and discuss effects of weaker links and non-selective
lexical access. Then, I discuss these effects in the context of grammatical structure building.
3. Grammatical gender
Grammatical gender lends itself particularly well for studying possible interactions between
lexical and grammatical processing, since grammatical gender comprises lexical and syntactic
7
aspects. For one thing, learners need to assign the target lexical gender to a noun when they
learn it, e.g. they need to classify the Spanish noun casa as feminine (casaFEM). Gender
assignment encompasses the allocation of a noun to a set of feminine nouns and the linking of
a noun to a gender node at the lemma level (e.g., Vigliocco, Antonini, & Garrett 1997).
Second, learners need to compute gender agreement, i.e. they realize gender inflection on
dependents of the noun, e.g. determiners, adjectives or pronouns (la casa roja – theFEM
houseFEM redFEM). Gender agreement is a syntactic process which proceeds by feature
checking or matching processes across different constituents (e.g., Carstens 2000). In real-
time comprehension, learners accordingly need to access the lexical gender of a noun or a
dependent and then match it with other agreeing constituents (e.g. Franck et al., 2008). Both
aspects of gender present problems to adult L2 learners, especially if the L1 does not realize
gender.
Even at advanced to near-native proficiency levels, L1 English learners of Spanish or
German achieve only between 75% to 90% accuracy in gender assignment for nouns in
picture naming or description tasks (e.g. Alarcón, 2011; Bruhn de Garavito & White, 2003;
Franceschina, 2005; Grüter, Lew-Williams, & Fernald, 2012; Hopp, 2013). These findings
suggest that gender assignment remains variable in an L2, with learners having non-target or
unstable gender representations for some nouns in their lexicons.
Adult L2 learners also show difficulties in computing gender agreement. In reaction-
time or neurophysiological tasks, learners display varying sensitivity to gender agreement
violations between nouns and determiners or adjectives (e.g. *la casa rojo – theFEM houseFEM
redMASC), in particular if the L1 does not use gender agreement between nouns and its
dependents (e.g. Sabourin & Stowe, 2008; though see Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011).
Problems with gender agreement are aggravated in predictive processing, which is often
studied in visual-world eye tracking. As participants listen to sentences containing gender
marked articles, they look at a display showing various objects. Recordings of eye movements
8
reveal the extent to which they use gender marking on articles to make anticipatory looks to
referents during sentence comprehension (for review, Roberts & Siyanova-Chanturia, 2013).
Adult L2 learners routinely fail to use gender marking on a determiner to anticipate an
upcoming noun (e.g. laFEM casaFEM; Grüter et al., 2012; Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2010;
though see Dussias et al., 2013).
So far, researcher have treated variability in gender assignment and non-target gender
agreement as unrelated, since the construction of a structural agreement relationship is, in
principle, independent of the target assignment of lexical gender. In fact, several studies
report that L2 learners evince consistent gender agreement despite non-target gender
assignment (e.g. el casa rojo – theMASC house*MASC redMASC; e.g. White et al., 2004).
Similarly, Lemhöfer et al. (2014) show in an ERP study that learners are sensitive to
violations of their subjective gender assignment, i.e. they compute gender agreement
violations against their own (sometimes non-target) gender assignment values. However,
evidence that gender assignment and agreement errors are unrelated comes mainly from tasks
measuring sensitivity to gender agreement violations. Recent studies suggest that lexical
variability in gender marking becomes relevant in predictive processing of gender agreement.
3.1.Weaker Links and predictive gender processing
In the context of predictive processing, a study by Hopp (2013) set out to explore potential
relations between gender assignment and agreement. It builds on the reasoning that non-target
lexical gender assignment leads to unsuccessful prediction in processing. If a learner assigns a
non-target gender to a noun (e.g., casa*MASC), she will make an erroneous prediction about the
upcoming noun (elMASC casa*MASC), which will immediately be flagged as incorrect by the
input when a different noun follows the article (elMASC … libroMASC). The resulting prediction
error servers as a signal to the listener to revise their prediction. In parsing, listeners have
9
been found to adjust or attenuate their predictions following prediction errors (e.g. Fine &
Jaeger, 2013; DeLong, Troyer, & Kutas, 2014). Finding that listeners adjust their predictions
underscores the adaptivity of the parser that seeks to maximize the utility of prediction in
processing (for review, Kuperberg & Jaeger, 2016). Hopp argued that lexical variability in
gender assignment curtails the utility of using gender for prediction, since non-target lexical
gender leads to prediction error. In consequence, learners will attenuate the use of gender for
prediction. Conversely, learners who have acquired target lexical gender assignment should
use gender for prediction, since gender proves to be a successful prediction cue. Consistent
with this account, a group of highly proficient L1 English learners of German who had target
gender assignment in elicited production performed indistinguishably from native Germans in
predictive processing (Hopp, 2013). In contrast, a group of L1 English learners with partially
variable L2 gender assignment did not use gender marking for prediction in comprehension,
even if only the subset of nouns was considered for which they showed target gender
assignment in production. Hence, target lexical gender assignment and predictive gender
agreement processing correlate.
In a training study, Hopp (2016) further considered causal relations between gender
assignment and agreement processing. In a pre-post test training study, 34 L1 English learners
of German were first tested on their lexical gender assignment and their predictive processing.
A week later, they received training on gender assignment of the nouns used in the
experiment, and they subsequently performed the predictive processing task again. In the pre-
test, the group did not make use of gender agreement in predictive processing, while they did
in the post-test. The size of the prediction effect was strongly correlated with the accuracy of
target gender assignment in the post-test. Only the learners who had converged on target
gender assignment of all nouns in the experiment could use gender marking on articles for
predictive agreement processing. Hence, the study shows that target gender assignment is a
prerequisite for target gender agreement processing. If lexical gender assignment remains
10
variable, learners do not use gender in agreement processing. To test whether lexical
variability would disrupt predictive gender agreement processing more generally, a second
experiment on native German speakers interspersed lexical gender mistakes in the filler items.
By introducing lexical variability in the input to L1 speakers, the experiment aimed to emulate
the lexical variability typical of the lexicons of L2 learners. Once gender mistakes had
accrued in the filler items over the course of the experiment, native German speakers stopped
using gender predictively for the experimental items (see also Haníluková, van Alphen, van
Goch, & Weber, 2012). In other words, lexical variability in the input to L1 speakers affected
gender prediction in ways similar to how lexical variability in the L2 lexicon constrains
predictive gender agreement processing.
In conjunction, these findings bolster the contention that relations between lexical and
grammatical aspects of gender are not merely correlational but causal in adult L2 processing.
Importantly, the effects of lexical variability go beyond accuracy in gender processing of
specific lexical items. Instead, weak and unstable lexical gender representations have
consequences for gender agreement processing of all nouns. Once the parser experiences
prediction errors with some nouns, the parser adjusts prediction according to gender
generally. These results from gender processing chime with studies finding that the reliability
of a cue to allow target prediction determines its use in processing (Henry, Hopp, & Jackson,
2017).
It is currently an open question whether these effects extend beyond predictive
processing, in which accuracy of lexical gender assignment is a prerequisite for target
predictive agreement processing. Recently, a study on gender violations using ERPs also
reported relations between lexical variability in production and agreement in comprehension
(Alemán Bañón, Miller, & Rothman, 2017). Further, there may be different sources of
variability in gender assignment. Lexical variability may reflect weaker links in retrieval of
gender information from the lexicon, since the retrieval of gender information in an L2 is less
11
robust than in an L1 (Shantz & Tanner, 2016). In addition, lexical variability may be due to a
weaker or unstable representation of gender in the adult L2 lexicon, because L2 learners learn
gender in an L2 differently from how children acquire gender in an L1 (see the Lexical
Gender Learning Hypothesis; Hopp 2013, building on Grüter et al., 2012; Arnon & Ramscar,
2012). Current research explores these aspects in training studies on artificial languages
(Shantz & Tanner, 2017).
3.2.Non-selective lexical access and predictive gender processing
L2 learners whose L1 marks grammatical gender have more target gender agreement than
learners whose L1s lack gender in off-line and on-line tasks (e.g. White et al., 2004; Sabourin
& Stowe, 2008; though see Loerts, 2011). However, among learners whose L1 also realizes
gender agreement processing is not invariably native-like, since target predictive gender
agreement processing can be limited to certain gender markings. For instance, Dussias et al.
(2013) found that highly proficient English learners of Spanish, yet not less proficient
learners, used gender on articles as a predictive agreement cue, while (low-proficient) Italian
learners of Spanish showed predictive gender processing only for feminine, yet not masculine
articles. Given that Italian, yet not English, has grammatical gender, this asymmetry suggests
that cross-linguistic differences in gender marking affect L2 gender processing.
In research on the bilingual mental lexicon, such differences have been studied in
terms of gender congruency (Paolieri, Cubelli, Macizo, Bajo, Lotto, & Job, 2010). Lexical
gender congruency refers to similarities in gender assignment between a noun and its
translation equivalent. For instance, the Spanish noun vela (candleFEM) has the same gender as
the noun Kerze (candleFEM) in German, while maleta (suitcaseFEM) is gender-incongruent with
the German Koffer (suitcaseMASC). A substantial body of research on word recognition and
picture naming found that bilingual speakers are faster and more accurate in recognizing and
12
producing gender-congruent than gender-incongruent words (e.g. Klassen, 2016). To account
for these findings, models assume that gender representations in the bilingual mental lexicon
are interrelated or accessed language non-selectively (e.g. Salamoura & Williams 2007).
Gender congruency also affects retrieval of gender in sentence contexts in that, e.g., Italian-
Spanish bilinguals show greater predictive processing of target objects if they are gender
congruent (Morales, Paolieri, Dussias, Valdés Kroff, & Gerfen, 2015; see also Weber & Paris,
2004). In a series of studies (Hopp & Lemmerth, 2017; Lemmerth & Hopp, in press), we
probed the extent to which gender congruency would constrain predictive gender agreement
processing in German by Russian-German bilinguals.
Both German and Russian assign nouns to one of three gender classes, i.e. masculine,
feminine and neuter, and gender agreement is realized inside noun phrases. German marks
gender overtly on articles (1a), while Russian – for lack of articles – marks gender on noun
endings (1b).
(1) a. derMASC/dieFEM/dasNEUT TischMASC/LampeFEM/KleidNEUT (German)
the table/lamp/dress
b. ø stolMASC/lampaFEM/platjeNEUT (Russian)
table/lamp/dress
(2) a. (ein) roterMASC/-esNEUT TischMASC/KleidNEUT (German)
a red table/dress
b. ø krasn-ijMASC/-oeNEUT stol/platje (Russian)
red table/dress
Both languages have prenominal attributive adjectives that mark gender on endings (2). In an
experiment that crossed the factors gender congruency and syntactic marking of gender, Hopp
& Lemmerth (2017) tested whether 24 L1 Russian intermediate to advanced adult L2 learners
13
of German would use gender marking in predictive processing. The results showed an
interaction of congruency and proficiency. Advanced learners used German gender agreement
predictively, irrespective of gender congruency and syntactic marking. Intermediate learners
equally demonstrated predictive gender agreement processing when gender marking was
realized on adjectives, yet they could use gender realized on articles for agreement only if the
nouns were gender-congruent in Russian. In other words, lexical overlap in gender facilitated
gender agreement processing (for comparable findings from bilingual Russian-German
children, see Lemmerth & Hopp, in press). Critically, lexical congruency effects only held in
syntactic contexts in which Russian and German differ, i.e. gender marking on articles. In
gender processing, then, lexical and syntactic factors interact in that lexical overlap can
facilitate gender agreement processing in syntactic contexts that are dissimilar in L1 and L2.
In sum, research on L2 gender processing suggests that both weaker lexical links and
non-selective lexical access have consequences for sentence processing in that agreement
processing is constrained by lexical factors, especially in syntactic contexts where L1 and L2
differ. Importantly, these effects are paradigmatic. First, instability in gender assignment for
some nouns has implications for gender processing generally. Lexical variability with some
nouns appears to attenuate predictive gender agreement processing for all nouns. Second,
incongruency in gender assignment for some nouns has implications for gender processing in
that predictive use of gender is limited to congruent lexical realizations of gender in syntactic
contexts that differ between the L1 and the L2.
Finally, the studies summarized above point to interactions between lexical and
syntactic processing. Lexical and syntactic processing interact in that differences in the
representation and processing of lexical gender lead to qualitatively different patterns of
syntactic agreement processing in L2 learners and monolinguals. However, one may argue
that these interactions are perhaps particular to grammatical gender for which lexical and
14
syntactic aspects are closely intertwined. In the following section, I discuss a selection of
studies that consider effects of lexical processing for syntactic structure building.
4. Building grammatical structure
Two broad lines of research have studied how L2 learners build grammatical structure in the
real-time comprehension of ambiguous or syntactically complex sentences. The first line of
research probes which information types guide initial L2 parsing and whether L2 learners can
successfully reanalyse a parse provided the initial parsing preference has led to an incorrect
interpretation (e.g. Frenck-Mestre & Pynte, 1997; Hopp, 2014a; Jackson, 2008; Jacob &
Felser, 2016, Jegerski, 2012; Roberts & Felser, 2011). Many studies investigated structural
parsing preferences in ambiguous relative clauses, especially since parsing preferences vary
cross-linguistically (e.g. Felser, Roberts, Marinis, & Gross, 2003; Papadopoulou & Clahsen,
2003, Rah & Adone, 2010). A second line of research targets abstract syntactic structure in
filler-gap dependencies, e.g. traces, or syntactic locality restrictions, e.g. Subjacency or
Binding Principles. For both lines of research, studies report that L2 parses are guided by
plausibility and discourse information (e.g. Hopp, 2014a; Pan, Schimke, & Felser, 2015;
Roberts & Felser, 2011) while robust reliance on syntax is less in evidence (e.g. Felser et al.,
2003; Marinis, Roberts, Felser, & Clahsen, 2005; though see Omaki & Schulz, 2011).
4.1.Weaker Links and syntactic structure building
Several studies have examined effects of lexical retrieval speed of the words contained in the
syntactic structures that L2 learners build incrementally. One type of studies has considered
individual differences between L2 learners in lexical decoding facility (e.g. McDonald &
Roussell, 2010). In a study on relative clause attachment, Hopp (2014b) tested 75 high-
15
intermediate to advanced L1 German learners of English. They took a reading-span task to
assess working memory, a lexical decision task to probe lexical decoding, and they read
temporarily ambiguous relative clauses that were either disambiguated locally by subject-verb
agreement (3a) or non-locally by gender marking on reflexive pronouns (3b).
(3) a. The director congratulated the instructor of the schoolboys who was writing the
reports.
b. The student had liked the secretary of the professor who had almost killed himself
in the office.
For the locally disambiguated sentences, the L2 group demonstrated a clear high attachment
preference in eye-movement measures. For the non-locally disambiguated sentences, lexical
decoding, yet not working memory, interacted with reading measures. Only L2 readers with
fast lexical decoding skills had a native-like structural attachment preference. These findings
underscore that structure building in the creation of non-local dependencies depends in part on
efficient lexical decoding of the words implicated in the parse.
Further evidence of the importance of lexical aspects comes from processing studies
that manipulate lexical retrieval speed via word frequency. Building on a study by Tily,
Fedorenko and Gibson (2010), Hopp (2016b) considered differences in the processing of
subject versus object cleft sentences as in (4).
(4) a. It was Amanda whoi ti scared/horrified Sulena with a frightening look.
(subject cleft)
b. It was Amanda whoi Sulena scared/horrified ti with a frightening look. (object cleft)
16
Object clefts give rise to processing delays that reflect the differences in syntactic structure
between subject and object clefts (e.g. Clifton & Frazier, 1989). The verb in the sentence was
either a high-frequency verb (scare) or a semantically equivalent lower-frequency verb
(horrify). Reading times of the underlined segments in (4) showed a significant four-way
interaction of syntactic structure, verb frequency, segment and group. Unlike the L1 group,
the L2 learners were strongly affected by the lexical frequency of the verb in that reading
slowdowns associated with the more complex object cleft structure showed in different
segments. For high-frequency verbs, L2 readers evinced reading delays for object clefts in the
cleft segment (scared Sulena/Sulena scared). For low-frequency verbs, these slowdowns
arose only in the postcleft segment (with a). Hence, slower lexical retrieval with low-
frequency verbs delays effects of syntactic structure. These results point to a functional
staging of lexical and syntactic processing: structure-building operations are restricted to be
implemented only after lexical retrieval of the items they incorporate has been completed to a
certain extent (see also Tily et al., 2010; Staub, 2011). Since L2 learners are slower in lexical
decoding and have less robust representations of low-frequency items (Gollan et al., 2011),
frequency effects occur sooner and in a more pronounced fashion in L2 than in L1 processing.
Other studies report that target-like L2 processing is modulated by reading speed (e.g. Kaan,
Ballantyne; & Wijnen, 2014; Roberts & Felser, 2011). Since overall reading speed subsumes
lexical processing, these studies also support the idea that processing at levels other than
syntactic structure building contributes to target-like syntactic processing.
In conjunction, these studies show that the slower timing of lexical retrieval in L2
speakers affects sentence processing. Both lower lexical decoding ability and stronger lexical
frequency effects implicate a slower time-course of lexical processing, which, in turn, may
entail that structure building is delayed, attenuated or even absent.
4.2.Non-selective lexical access and syntactic structure building
17
In L2 processing, L2 learners access lexical-thematic information of the L1 translation
equivalents of verbs (Frenck-Mestre & Pynte, 1997; see also Juffs, 2004). For instance,
Dussias and Cramer-Scaltz (2008) find that Spanish–English readers are sensitive to verb bias
in English, i.e. they learn from experience whether a verb prefers to take a direct object or a
sentential complement (see also Lee, Lu, & Garnsey, 2013). Target L2 processing was
magnified if verb bias in the L1 and the L2 overlapped and learners had acquired verb
preferences in English. These studies illustrate that L2 learners access lexical
subcategorization information from the L1 in L2 sentence processing in that L1 verb bias
partially guides L2 parsing.
Recent studies using cognates find that non-selective lexical access extends beyond
subcategorization information. As reviewed above, cognate words facilitate lexical access
since a word form maps to identical conceptual representations in both languages of a
bilingual. Focussing on the facilitatory role of cognates for lexical access, Miller (2014)
conducted a cross-modal priming experiment on gap filling in the L2 processing of wh-
dependencies. Previous self-paced reading and cross-modal priming studies reported that
adult L2 readers do not posit (intermediate) gaps in syntactically licensed positions; instead
they directly integrate a wh-filler with the verb (Felser & Roberts, 2007; Marinis et al., 2005;
yet see Pliatsikis & Marinis, 2013). In cross-modal priming, picture probes that are either
related or unrelated to the wh-filler are used in various positions of the sentence to test if and
where the wh-filler is reactivated. In a set of experiments, Miller (2014) varied the cognate
status of the probes, assuming that cognate probes would allow for faster lexical processing of
the probes than noncognates. In object cleft sentences and relative clauses, L1 English
intermediate and advanced learners L2 French indeed demonstrated showed targetlike
reactivation of nouns in the cognate, yet not the cognate conditions. Miller interprets these
18
results as reflecting the faster lexical processing of cognates, which, in turn, she argues free
resources for computing target syntactic relations.
Facilitatory effects of cognates on lexical access were also demonstrated in a study by
Hopp (2017a), building on prior research by Jacob (2009). German-English intermediate to
advanced adult learners read sentences as in (5).
(5) a. When the doctor Sarah ignored tried to leave the room the nurse came
in all of a sudden. (Reduced Relatice Clause – Embedded Clause)
b. The doctor Sarah ignored tried to leave the room when the nurse came
in all of a sudden. (Reduced Relative Clause – Main Clause)
c. When the doctor who Sarah ignored tried to leave the room the nurse
came in all of a sudden. (Full Relative Clause – Embedded Clause)
d. The doctor who Sarah ignored tried to leave the room when the nurse
came in all of a sudden. (Full Relative Clause – Main Clause)
If translated word by word, the word order of the preposed temporal clause containing a
reduced relative clause (Sarah ignored) in (5a) is temporarily ambiguous with a canonical
embedded German clause (Als der Doktor Sarah ignorierte – When the doctor ignored Sarah)
due to the SOV order in German embedded clauses. No such syntactic overlap obtains in
main clauses (5b), since German has verb-second order in main clauses. In (5c&d), the overt
relative pronoun who equally rules out any direct mapping of the English word order onto
German syntax. Using self-paced reading, Jacob (2009) found reading delays suggestive of
cross-linguistic activation of the L1 syntax among German learners in sentences like (5a).
These delays were limited to when readers alternated between reading sentences in English
and fillers in German. In eye tracking during reading, Hopp (2017a) extended Jacob’s study
by including a cognate manipulation (ignoreCOGNATE versus avoidNON-COGNATE) in order to test
19
whether lexical co-activation and facilitation affect the cross-linguistic activation of L1 syntax
in L2 processing.
First fixation durations were significantly shorter for cognates than non-cognates in
the L2 group, showing that cognates facilitate lexical processing even in monolingual English
sentence contexts. Further, German readers had selective slowdowns on the verb in (5a) in
later reading time measures, i.e. first-pass reading times, for sentences with non-cognates, yet
not with cognates. These slowdowns obtained for the entire group of German learners in an
experiment including German fillers; in a monolingual English-only experiment, only lower-
proficiency learners evinced reading time delays reflecting activation of German syntax. In
conjunction, the findings demonstrate that cognates modulate cross-linguistic syntactic
activation in L2 sentence processing. As in Miller’s (2014) study, the inclusion of cognates
leads to more target-like L2 syntactic processing in that L2 readers appeared to have sufficient
resources to compute the English target structure and inhibit interference from the L1.
Conversely, with non-cognates, lexical processing did apparently not leave enough resources
to inhibit the L1 parse. Activation of the L1 is more pronounced at lower and intermediate
proficiency levels (see also Hopp, 2017c), and it persist at higher proficiency levels if overall
activation of the L1 is heightened in a code-mixing context with L1 filler sentences.
In this selective overview, I summarized a set of recent studies that address the
relations between the bilingual lexicon and sentence processing. A growing number of studies
finds that lexical processing affects syntactic structure building also in contexts in which
lexical information does not encode information relevant for structure-building operations, as
is the case with gender for agreement processing or verb bias for complement selection.
Rather, properties such as frequency and cross-linguistic form overlap of lexical items
incorporated in a sentence contribute to the successful formation of a target parse in L2
processing.
20
5. The Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis and models of L2 processing and acquisition
Against the backdrop of these findings, the Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis claims that some
aspects of non-target L2 syntactic processing may be owing to characteristics of bilingual
processing in stages that precede and subserve parsing, in particular lexical processing. In
consequence, a target-like parse cannot always be effected. Critically, failure by L2 learners
to demonstrate target syntactic processing does not mean that the L2 parser or its processes
are different from the monolingual parser or that the underlying grammar of the L2 cannot be
accessed. Rather, these difficulties can be caused by factors extraneous to syntactic processing
as such.
The Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis, inspired by observations in Dekydtspotter,
Schwartz and Sprouse (2006), builds on the functional architecture of the language processing
system in which lexical processing precedes syntactic processing and feeds into it.
Specifically, the integrated nature of the bilingual mental lexicon with its core characteristics
of weaker links and non-selective lexical access can lead to input for syntactic processing that
is less robust, more diffuse or delayed. Accordingly, delays or differences in earlier stages of
processing that subserve syntactic processing may lead to non-target syntactic processing. In
these cases, if difficulties, delays or cross-linguistic influence in lower-level processing are
removed or taken into account, adult L2 learners can come to demonstrate target-like
syntactic processing in the L2. Conversely, if corresponding difficulties in lower-level
processing are experimentally induced in monolingual speakers, L2-like non-target syntactic
processing is predicted to ensue.
The functional and temporal staging of lexical and syntactic processing in sentence
comprehension is central to the Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis, and the hypothesis essentially
defines their interactions and spells out their consequences for L2 parsing. In consequence,
the Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis by no means aspires to be a model of (L2) sentence
21
processing, and it certainly does not account for all aspects of non-target syntactic processing,
esp. at lower L2 proficiency levels where the interlanguage grammar accessed by the parser
may be non-target-like.
In addition, for some phenomena in L2 parsing, effects of lexical processing may be
limited or less visible, and lexical processing may be largely irrelevant for others. Even for
phenomena, such as gender agreement, for which lexical contributions to non-target syntactic
processing obtain, lexical variability does not account for all aspects of non-target processing.
Beyond the processing of gender agreement, effects of lexical processing have been found for
structural ambiguities and non-local dependencies. For these phenomena, lexical factors often
interacted with syntactic complexity and locality. In consequence, effects of lexical
processing in parsing appear to be more pronounced in taxing parses, e.g. those requiring
substantial reanalysis or the storage and integration of multiple types of information.
Conversely, lexical effects may surface even for less complex parses if lexical processing
becomes more demanding, e.g. due to the inclusion of low-frequency items.
Besides structural factors, it is necessary to assess how individual factors, e.g. working
memory, interact with lexical processing. In Hopp (2014b), lexical processing and reading
span did not correlate, yet a systematic survey of individual differences in L2 processing skills
awaits investigation. All of these aspects should be tested empirically. As it stands, the
Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis is in need of refinement and limited in scope. However, the
core tenets of the hypothesis can be incorporated into existing models of L2 sentence
processing and acquisition.
The Lexical Bottleneck hypothesis forms a natural extension to limited-capacity
models of non-targetlike L2 sentence processing (e.g. Hopp, 2010; McDonald, 2006; Sorace,
2011; see also Dekydtspotter & Renaud, 2014). According to these models, the computational
demands of processing an L2 leave insufficient resources, so that L2 learners cannot integrate
all requisite information during on-line comprehension. In consequence, learners often fail to
22
complete target-like parses and may compute shallow, incomplete or L1-based structures and
interpretations. The Lexical Bottleneck highlights how lexical processing depletes resources
that curtail syntactic processing, as lexical retrieval impacts the processing of syntactic
ambiguities (Hopp, 2014b, 2016b) or agreement relations (e.g. Hopp, 2013; McDonald &
Roussel, 2010).
By focussing on the mapping of lexical to syntactic information, the Lexical
Bottleneck Hypothesis also becomes relevant in the context of interface approaches to L2
acquisition, e.g. Sorace’s Interface Hypothesis (2011) and Slabakova’s Bottleneck Hypothesis
on inflection (Slabakova, 2009). The Lexical Bottleneck Hypothesis adds to these approaches
that internal interfaces constitute bottlenecks in the real-time mapping of information across
domains and that lexical retrieval difficulties extend beyond the recruitment of inflection.
According to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006), adult L2
learners underuse syntactic information versus other information, e.g. lexical-thematic,
discourse, plausibility and statistical information, in real-time processing. In its recent version,
the Shallow Structures Hypothesis emphasizes that differences between L1 and L2 processing
are gradual, rather than qualitative and that they affect the timing of when different
information types are used in L1 and L2 processing (Clahsen & Felser, 2017). Part of the
reason for the underuse of morphosyntax in L2 learners may be that the time-course of
processing mandates L2 learners to assign more relative weight to the processing of lexical
information, and, conversely, that signs of the use of syntactic information and syntactic
structure building are absent or delayed due to the higher demands of lexical processing. On
top of delays in lexical processing having knock-on effects in grammatical processing,
differences in word processing may affect later stages of processing. According to the updated
version of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis, L2 learners engage in lower degrees of
morphological decomposition and rely more on whole-word representations in L2 processing
(see also Clahsen & Veríssimo, 2016). Hence, the amount of lexically-based, e.g. inflectional,
23
information that is accessed during L2 sentence processing may be lower or its retrieval
slower, so that it cannot be recruited in syntactic processing. In future research, it will be
interesting to investigate whether poor morphological decomposition also entails less detailed
syntactic processing.
The relative weighting of different information types forms the central tenet in
Cunnings’ (2017) memory-based model of L2 processing. According to Cunnings, L2
speakers suffer from greater cue-based interference and they assign more weights to discourse
than to morphosyntactic information in parsing than L1 speakers. Cunnings mentions that one
underlying cause for the larger susceptibility of L2 learners to interference may be the quality
and extent of lexical processing determining the detail with which lexical items are stored in
memory. Less robust lexical representations may be more diffuse and thus give rise to greater
interference effects in sentence processing (see also Hopp, 2017b). While relations between
lexical knowledge and interference in sentence processing have been found for L1 processing
(e.g. van Dyke, Johns, & Kukona, 2014), future studies need to ascertain whether similar
relations hold in L2 processing.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, I explored the consequences of the bilingual mental lexicon for L2 sentence
processing. Two characteristics of the bilingual mental lexicon, namely weaker lexical links
as well as more diffuse lexical activation and representations owing to non-selective lexical
access, can give rise to differences in syntactic processing between L2 and L1 speakers. On
the one hand, lexical processing may overtax computational capacity, delaying or suspending
the application of syntactic structure. On the other hand, weaker lexical encoding and non-
selective lexical access reduce the detail of lexical representations, affecting the degree of
interference or the relative weighting of lexical versus syntactic information in L2 parsing.
24
Lexical aspects can thus arbitrate whether, when and how syntactic structure is accessed or
applied in L2 sentence processing. In consequence, their consideration merits a central role in
research on (L2) sentence comprehension as the field moves towards formulating more
comprehensive models of bilingual language processing that comprise phonological, lexical
and syntactic processing.
Acknowledgements
I thank the organisers of the 17th Annual Conference of the Japan Second Language
Association (J-SLA 2017) conference at Shizuoka University of Art and Culture, Japan, for
kindly inviting me to deliver a keynote talk, and I am grateful to the conference participants
for comments and stimulating discussion.
References
Alarcón, I.V. (2011). Spanish gender agreement under complete and incomplete acquisition:
Early and late bilinguals’ linguistic behavior within the noun phrase. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14, 332–50.
Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2017). Morphological variability in second
language learners: An examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(10), 1509-1536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000394.
Arnon, I. & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How
order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 122, 292–305.
Bruhn de Garavito, J. & White, L. (2003). The second language acquisition of Spanish DPs:
The status of grammatical features. In: A.T. Pérez-Leroux & J.M. Liceras (eds), The
25
acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1/L2 connection (pp. 135-178). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 319–355.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2017). Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. doi:10.1017/S0272263117000250
Clahsen, H., & Veríssimo, J. (2016). Investigating grammatical processing in bilinguals: The
case of morphological priming. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 685–698.
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies.
In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing
(pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 659-678.
Dekydtspotter, L., & Renaud, C. (2014).On second language processing and grammatical
development: The parser in second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 4, 131–166.
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2
processing research. In M. Grantham O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
DeLong, K.A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension:
sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 8, 631–45.
26
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first
and second language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843–863.
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word
recognition system: from identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 5, 175–197. doi: 10.1017/S1366728902003012
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer-Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of
subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during
second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When
gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.
Duyck,W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition
by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 663–679.
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-
modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous
sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24,
453–489.
Fine, A.B. & Jaeger, T.F. (2013). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension.
Cognitive Science, 37, 578–91.
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electro-
physiological evidence of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14, 379–399.
27
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of gram-
matical gender. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., Antón-Méndez, I., Collina, S., & Frauenfelder, U. (2008). The
interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A cross-linguistic study of form
effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 329–374.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention
and performance: Vol. 12. The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hove: Erlbaum.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second
and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148. doi:
10.1080/027249897392251
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always
means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis.
Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787–814.
Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K.
(2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag
hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 186–209.
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production
or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.
Hanulíková, A., van Alphen, P.M., van Goch, M.M., & Weber, A. (2012). When one person’s
mistake is another’s standard usage: The effect of foreign accent on syntactic processing.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 878–87.
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Language integration in bilingual sentence
production. Acta Psychologica, 128, 479–489. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.005
Henry, N., Jackson, C. N., & Hopp, H. (2017). Cue additivity and adaptivity in predictive
processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. DOI:
10.1080/23273798.2017.1327080
28
Hopp, H. (2010).Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities
between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and
syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.
Hopp, H. (2014a). Individual differences in the L2 processing of object-subject ambiguities.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716413000180
Hopp, H. (2014b). Working memory effects on the L2 processing of ambiguous relative
clauses. Language Acquisition, 21, 250–278.
Hopp, H. (2016a). Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender agreement in non-native
processing. Second Language Research, 32, 277–307.
Hopp, H. (2016b). The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in L2 sentence
comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1253–1280. DOI:
10.1017/S0142716415000569
Hopp, H. (2017a). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence
processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(1), 96–130. DOI:
10.1075/lab.14027.hop
Hopp, H. (2017b). Individual differences in L2 parsing and lexical representations.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 689–690. DOI:
10.1017/S1366728916000821
Hopp, H. (2017c). The processing of English which-questions in adult L2 learners: Effects of
L1 transfer and proficiency. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 36(1). DOI: 10.1515/zfs-
2017-0006)
Hopp, H. & Lemmerth, N. (2017). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender
processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, DOI: 10.1017/S0272263116000437
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study
language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.
29
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic
information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00481.x
Jackson, C. N., Massaro, A., & Hopp, H. (2017). The impact of L1 structural frequency and
cognate status on the timing of L2 production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(5),
535–550. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2017.1299156
Jacob, G. (2009). The Role of the Native Language in Second-Language Syntactic Processing.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Dundee.
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native
garden-path recovery. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 907–925.
Jegerski, J. (2012). The processing of temporary subject-object ambiguities in native and
near-native Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 721–735.
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language.
Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.
Kaan, E., Ballantyne, J. C., & Wijnen, F. (2014). Effects of reading speed on second-language
sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1017/S0142716413000519
Klassen, R. (2016). The representation of asymmetric grammatical gender systems in the
bilingual mental lexicon. Probus, 28(1), 9–28.
Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, T. H. (2014). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us
about language production. In V. Ferreira, M. Goldrick, & M. Miozzo (Eds.). The Oxford
handbook of language production (pp. 165-181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30
Kroll, J. F., & Hermans, D. (2011). Psycholinguistic perspectives on language processing in
bilinguals. In M. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modeling bilingualism. From structure to
chaos: In Honor of Kees de Bot (pp. 15–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kroll, J.F. & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing. In J.F.
Kroll, A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.). Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches
(pp. 531-553). Oxford University Press: New York.
Kuperberg, G., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language compre-
hension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59.
Lee, E.-K., Lu, D. H., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in
L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 761–775.
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H., Baayen, R. H., Grainger, J., & Zwitserlood, P.
(2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A
megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34,
12-31. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.12
Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Indefrey, P. (2014). Idiosyncratic grammars: Syntactic pro-
cessing in second language comprehensions uses subjective feature representations.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1428–1444.
Lemmerth, N. & Hopp, H. (in press). Gender processing in simultaneous and successive
bilingual children: Effects of lexical and syntactic cross-linguistic influence. Language
Acquisition. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2017.1391815
Lew-Williams, C. & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked es by native
and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 447–464.
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye
movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 35, 381–390.
31
Loerts, H. (2012). Uncommon gender: Eyes and brains, native and second language learners
and grammatical gender (Doctoral dissertation). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: Grodil
Press.
Lopez-Prego, B. & Gabriele, A. (2014). Examining the nature of morphological variability in
native and non-native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 192–221.
MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic
ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 103, 676–703.
Marinis, T.,Roberts, L., Felser,C., & Clahsen, H. (2005).Gaps in second language sentence
processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor
grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of
Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.
McDonald, J. L., & Roussel, C. C. (2010). Past tense grammaticality judgment and
production in non-native and stressed native English speakers. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 13, 429–448.
Miller, K. A. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh-
dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 167–191.
Morales, L., Paolieri, D., Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Gerfen, C. (2015). The gender
congruency effect during bilingual spoken-word recognition. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 19, 294–310. doi: 10.1017/S1366728915000176.
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second
language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.
Pan, H., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative
clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.
32
Paolieri, D., Cubelli, R., Macizo, P., Bajo, M. T., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2010). Grammatical
gender processing in Italian and Spanish bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 63, 1631–1645.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing:
A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
24, 501–528.
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When
naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
16, 167–182.
Rah, A., & Adone, D. (2010). Processing of the reduced relative clause versus main verb
ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32, 79–109.
Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence processing in bilinguals. In R. P. G. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence
processing (pp. 221–246). Hove: Psychology Press.
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-
language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.
Roberts, L., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2013). Using eye-tracking to investigate topics in L2
acquisition and L2 processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 213-235.
Runnqvist, E., Gollan, T. H., Costa, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). A disadvantage in bilingual
sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages.
Cognition, 129, 256–263.
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second
languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430.
Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical gender in the
bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 10, 257–275.
33
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal
of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.004
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance practice and differentiation of
speedup from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 369–385.
Shantz, K., & Tanner, D. (2016). Are L2 learners pressed for time? Retrieval of grammatical
gender information in L2 lexical access. In J. Scott & D. Waughtal (Eds.) Proceedings of
the 40th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 331-345).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Shantz, K. & Tanner, D. (2017). Accounting for reduced L2 gender-based anticipation: A
direct test of the Lexical Gender Learning Hypothesis. Talk given at the Boston
University Conference on Language Development, November 3rd-5th, 2017, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.
Slabakova, R. (2009). What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language? In: M.
Bowles, T. Ionin, S. Montrul, & A. Tremblay (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009) (pp. 280-294).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.
Staub, A. (2011). Word recognition and syntactic attachment in reading: Evidence for a
staged architecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 407–433.
Tily, H., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, T. (2010). The time-course of lexical and structural
processes in sentence comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63,
910–927.
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical
access during L1 sentence reading: the effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and
34
L1-L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition, 37, 1412–1431.
Tokowicz, N. (2015). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York:
Routledge.
Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The
influence of semantic constraints on bilingualword recognition during sentence reading.
Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 88–107.
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism
change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological
Science, 20, 923–927. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02389.x
Van Dyke, J., Johns, C., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only
spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131, 373–403.
Van Hell, J.G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language
activation. Language Learning, 62, 148–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00710.x
Weber, A., & Paris, G. (2004). The origin of the linguistic gender effect in spoken-word
recognition: Evidence from non-native listening. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual
Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1446–1451.
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-MacGregor, M., & Leung, Y.K.I. (2004). Gender and
number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 105–33.
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first and second
language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural
paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 73–80.