Concord in Interlanguage: Efficiency or Priming?

Structural Competition in Second Language Production: Towards a Constraint‐Satisfaction Model

“…Finally, the sheer number of studies that document article and plural difficulties of L2 populations that do not have these categories in their L1s speaks for itself, both for articles (see Leung, , Robertson, , Trenkic, , and Tryzna, , for L1 Chinese; Žegarac, , for Croatian; Young, , for Czech; Butler, , Hakuta, , and Kuribara, , for Japanese; Ionin, Ko, & Wexler, , for Korean and Russian; Avery & Radišić, , and Trenkic, , , , for Serbian) and for plurals (see Bialystok & Miller, , Bliss, , Jia, , Jiang, , Johnson & Newport, , Lardiere, , and Young, , for L1 Chinese; Austin, , and Yeni‐Komshian, Robbins, & Flege, , for L1 Korean; Mellow & Cumming, , for L1 Japanese; Charters, Dao, & Jansen, , and Dao, , for L1 Vietnamese). In comparison, few studies focused on English articles and plurals in production of L2 populations that have corresponding systems in their L1s—and when they did, far fewer problems were identified (e.g., García Mayo, ).…”

On the primacy of theory in applied studies: a critique of Pienemann and Johnston (1987)

“…II A critique of P&J In spite of the significant influence of P&J, this article argues that the theoretical foundation of P&J is incorrect and therefore both the model and the research-driven suggestions are unfounded. In addition, as argued by Mellow and Cumming (1994), this article maintains that no single factor (e.g., processing prerequisites) nor even two factors, will account for the developmental progression of L2 morphosyntactic elements. Instead, a multitude of factors will affect development and use, with the strength of these factors being influenced by L1 transfer and the attentional requirements of specific tasks, among other considerations (cf.…”

“…While memory constraints would make it difficult for a speaker to 'hold' this marker, P&J did not explain why such a marker (or such information) must be held in memory, since presumably the concept could be directly activated and expressed as an appropriately inflected word, as might normally occur when there is no preceding element. In addition, Mellow and Cumming (1994) discussed the processing of concorded affixes in detail, providing data which indicate that, in certain types of production (but not comprehension), the presence of concording preceding elements facilitates rather than impairs the subsequent processing and production of redundant affixes. White (1991), Hulstijn (1992;cited in Brindley, 1996), Hudson (1993), Ellis (1994: 387-88) and VanPatten (1994) provided additional discussions of important differences between comprehension and production processes.…”

Broadening, Deepening, and Consolidating

“…One line of development arises from the expansive scope of corpus-based studies (e.g., Biber, Conrad, Reppen, Byrd & Helt, 2002;Hawkey, 2003;Hinkel, 2002). Another line of development concerns multiple perspectives on components of language ability; for example, for writing in second languages, models have emerged to account for such discrete components as composing processes (Sasaki, 2002), lexical knowledge and processing (Schoonen, van Gederen, de Glopper, Hulstijn, Snellings, Simis & Stevenson, 2002), grammatical concord (Mellow & Cumming, 1994), and textual indicators of longterm achievement (Cumming & Riazi, 2000;Grant & Ginther, 2000;Hinkel, 2002).…”