This article reports findings from 3 experiments examining whether 2nd language (L2) words are represented in episodic memory, as originally proposed by Jiang and Forster (2001). Experiment 1 was a direct replication of Jiang and Forster, testing highly proficient Chinese-English bilinguals. Masked translation priming was obtained in an episodic recognition task from L2 to the 1st language (L1) for studied "old" L1 targets but not for unstudied "new" targets. This experiment also confirmed the translation asymmetry generally found in lexical decision tasks, namely, priming in the L1-L2 direction but not in the L2-L1 direction. Experiment 2 showed that recently learned words in an unfamiliar language (therefore, words that are obviously represented episodically) could also prime their L1 translations in an episodic recognition task but not in a lexical decision task. Finally, in Experiment 3, masked repetition priming was used with an episodic recognition memory task. For native speakers of English, repetition (L1-L1) priming is obtained only for old words, because there is no episodic representation for new words. However, Chinese-English bilinguals tested with the same items showed repetition (L2-L2) priming for both old and new words, indicating that the new L2 words were represented episodically as well. Overall, the results from these 3 experiments support the hypothesis that L2 words are represented in episodic memory. Finally, the mechanisms behind why L2-L1 translation priming can be obtained in episodic recognition and not in lexical decision are discussed.

This study compares four methodologies used to examine online sentence processing during reading. Specifically, self-paced, non-cumulative, moving-window reading (Just et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 111:228-238, 1982), eye tracking (see e.g., Rayner in Q J Exp Psychol 62:1457-1506, 2009), and two versions of the maze task (Forster et al. in Behav Res Methods 41:163-171, 2009)--the lexicality maze and the grammaticality maze--were used to investigate the processing of sentences containing temporary structural ambiguities. Of particular interest were (i) whether each task was capable of revealing processing differences on these sentences and (ii) whether these effects were indicated precisely at the predicted word/region. Although there was considerable overlap in the general pattern of results from the four tasks, there were also clear differences among them in terms of the strength and timing of the observed effects. In particular, excepting sentences that tap into clause-closure commitments, both maze task versions provided robust, "localized" indications of incremental sentence processing difficulty relative to self-paced reading and eye tracking.

This study examines the reading patterns of native speakers (NSs) and high-level (Chinese) nonnative speakers (NNSs) on three English sentence types involving temporarily ambiguous structural configurations. The reading patterns on each sentence type indicate that both NSs and NNSs were biased toward specific structural interpretations. These results are interpreted as evidence that both first-language and second-language (L2) sentence comprehension is guided (at least in part) by structure-based parsing strategies and, thus as counterevidence to the claim that NNSs are largely limited to rudimentary (or "shallow") syntactic computation during online L2 sentence processing.One of the core questions in second-language (L2) psycholinguistics is how L2 sentence comprehension is accomplished. In order to answer this question, researchers have focused largely on identifying and accounting for the similarities and differences between first-language (L1) and L2 sentence processing. Although there appears to be considerable overlap in the characteristics of L1 and L2 sentence comprehension, salient L1/L2 processing differences include disparities in global performance (i.e., generally slower and less accurate performance in the L2; among others, see Cook, 1997;Frenck-Mestre, 2002;Hahne & Friederici, 2001), as well as differential sensitivity to certain morphosyntactic cues (Guillelmon