Memory for non-native language: The role of lexical processing in the retention 
of surface form

Sampaio, Cristina; Konopka, Agnieszka E.

doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.746371

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Memory for non-native language: The role of lexical processing in the retention of surface form

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons1187

Konopka, Agnieszka E.
Psychology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, External Organizations;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Sampaio, C., & Konopka, A. E. (2013). Memory for non-native language: The role of lexical processing in the retention of surface form. Memory, 21, 537-544. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.746371.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0010-189C-A

Abstract

Research on memory for native language (L1) has consistently shown that retention of surface form is inferior to that of gist (e.g., Sachs, 1967). This paper investigates whether the same pattern is found in memory for non-native language (L2). We apply a model of bilingual word processing to more complex linguistic structures and predict that memory for L2 sentences ought to contain more surface information than L1 sentences. Native and non-native speakers of English were tested on a set of sentence pairs with different surface forms but the same meaning (e.g., “The bullet hit/struck the bull's eye”). Memory for these sentences was assessed with a cued recall procedure. Responses showed that native and non-native speakers did not differ in the accuracy of gist-based recall but that non-native speakers outperformed native speakers in the retention of surface form. The results suggest that L2 processing involves more intensive encoding of lexical level information than L1 processing.