Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- processing (3) (remove)
Institute
Multilingual research could offer a unique perspective on how the languages already acquired by a person affect the online processing of a new language. But it is currently difficult to assess this issue because theoretical accounts of multilingualism have focused on acquisition rather than processing and most empirical research to date has gathered untimed (offline) evidence. To help bridge this gap, we formulate hypotheses that can help derive processing predictions from existing accounts of multilingualism. But crucially, and based on previous findings in second language processing, we identify ways in which assumptions about crosslinguistic influence may need to be revised to allow the separate treatment of lexical and syntactic processing, and to consider the role of variables such as language dominance and proficiency. In our view, the question of what's special about multilingualism is worth studying, but more research is needed before we can begin answering it.
When we pay close attention to the prosody of Wh-questions in Japanese, we discover many novel and interesting empirical puzzles that would require us to devise a much finer syntactic component of grammar. This paper addresses the issues that pose some problems to such an elaborated grammar, and offers solutions, making an appeal to the information structure and sentence processing involved in the interpretation of interrogative and focus constructions.
Smith (1968) argues that poems may end with formal changes which produce an experience of closure in the reader. I argue that formal changes do not directly cause an experience of closure. Instead, changes in poetic form always demand increased processing effort from the reader, whether they involve new forms, shifts from more to less regular form, or from less to more regular form. I use relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995) to argue that the increased processing effort encourages the reader to formulate rich and relevant thoughts, including the thought "this poem has closure". Closure is thus the content of a thought rather than a type of experience. I further argue that "closure" is a term whose meaning cannot be fully understood, which makes the thought "this poem has closure" into a schematic belief of the kind which Sperber shows has great richness and productivity. This is one of the reasons that the thought "this poem has closure" achieves sufficient relevance to justify the effort put into processing the end of the poem.