Brysbaert and Duyck (this issue) suggest that it is time to abandon the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll and Stewart, 1994) in favor of connectionist models such as BIA+ (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002) that more accurately account for the recent evidence on non-selective access in bilingual word recognition. In this brief response, we first review the history of the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM), consider the set of issues that it was proposed to address and then evaluate the evidence that supports and fails to support the initial claims of the model. Although fifteen years of new research findings require a number of revisions to the RHM, we argue that the central issues to which the model was addressed, the way in which new lexical forms are mapped to meaning and the consequence of language learning history for lexical processing, cannot be accounted for solely within models of word recognition.

We used event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to investigate the contributions of explicit and implicit processes during second language (L2) sentence comprehension. We used a L2 grammaticality judgment task (GJT) to test 20 native English speakers enrolled in the first four semesters of Spanish while recording both accuracy and ERP data. Because end-of-sentence grammaticality judgments are open to conscious inspection, we reasoned that they can be influenced by strategic processes that reflect on formal rules and therefore reflect primarily offline explicit processing. On the other hand, because ERPs are a direct reflection of online processing, they reflect automatic, nonreflective, implicit responses to stimuli (Osterhout, Bersick, & McLaughlin, 1997; Rugg et al., 1998; Tachibana et al., 1999).We used a version of the GJT adapted for the ERP environment. The experimental sentences varied the form of three different syntactic constructions: (a) tense-marking, which is formed similarly in the first language (L1) and the L2; (b) determiner number agreement, which is formed differently in the L1 and the L2; and (c) determiner gender agreement, which is unique to the L2. We examined ERP responses during a time period between 500 and 900 ms following the onset of the critical (violation or matched control) word in the sentence because extensive past research has shown that grammatical violations elicit a positive-going deflection in the ERP waveform during this period (e.g., the “P600”; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992).We found that learners were sensitive (i.e., showed different brain responses to grammatical and ungrammatical sentences) to violations in L2 for constructions that are formed similarly in the L1 and the L2, but were not sensitive to violations for constructions that differ in the L1 and the L2. Critically, a robust grammaticality effect was found in the ERP data for the construction that was unique to the L2, suggesting that the learners were implicitly sensitive to these violations. Judgment accuracy was near chance for all constructions. These findings suggest that learners are able to implicitly process some aspects of L2 syntax even in early stages of learning but that this knowledge depends on the similarity between the L1 and the L2. Furthermore, there is a divergence between explicit and implicit measures of L2 learning, which might be due to the behavioral task demands (e.g., McLaughlin, Osterhout, & Kim, 2004). We conclude that comparing ERP and behavioral data could provide a sensitive method for measuring implicit processing.This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health Individual National Research Service Award (NIH HD42948-01) awarded to Natasha Tokowicz and a National Institutes of Health Institutional National Research Service Award (T32 MH19102) awarded to Brian MacWhinney. We thank Beatrice DeAngelis, Dayne Grove, Kwan Hansongkitpong, Katie Keil, Lee Osterhout, Chuck Perfetti, Kelley Sacco, Alex Waid, and Eddie Wlotko for their assistance with this project. We gratefully acknowledge the comments of Rod Ellis, Jan Hulstijn, Albert Valdman, and the two anonymous SSLA reviewers on earlier versions of this manuscript. A portion of these results was presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society (2002, November).

A goal of second language (L2) learning is to enable learners to understand and speak L2 words without mediation through the first language (L1). However, psycholinguistic research suggests that lexical candidates are routinely activated in L1 when words in L2 are processed. In this article we describe two experiments that examined the acquisition of L2 lexical fluency. In Experiment 1, two groups of native English speakers, one more and one less fluent in French as their L2, performed word naming and translation tasks. Learners were slower and more error prone to name and to translate words into L2 than more fluent bilinguals. However, there was also an asymmetry in translation performance such that forward translation was slower than backward translation. Learners were also slower than fluent bilinguals to name words in English, the L1 of both groups. In Experiment 2, we compared the performance of native English speakers at early stages of learning French or Spanish to the performance of fluent bilinguals on the same tasks. The goal was to determine whether the apparent cost to L1 reading was a consequence of L2 learning or a reflection of differences in cognitive abilities between learners and bilinguals. Experiment 2 replicated the main features of Experiment 1 and showed that bilinguals scored higher than learners on a measure of L1 reading span, but that this difference did not account for the apparent cost to L1 naming.We consider the implications of these results for models of the developing lexicon.

There are several major questions in the literature on late second language (L2) learning and processing. Some of these questions include: Can late L2 learners process an L2 in a native-like way? What is the nature of the differences in L2 processing among L2 learners at different levels of L2 proficiency? In this article, we review studies that addressed these questions using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) in late learners and that focused on syntactic processing. ERPs provide an on-line, millisecond-by-millisecond record of the brain’s electrical activity during cognitive processing. ERP measures can thus provide valuable information on the timing and degree of neural activation as language processing (here: syntactic processing in L2) unfolds over time. After discussing the use of ERPs for the study of L2 learning and processing, we review electrophysiological studies on syntactic and morphosyntactic processing in late L2 learners with different levels of L2 proficiency. The currently available evidence indicates that patterns of neural activity in the brain during syntactic and morphosyntactic processing can be modulated by various, possibly interrelated, factors including the similarity or dissimilarity of syntactic structures in L2 and L1, the exact nature of the syntactic structure L2 learners seek to comprehend and the concomitant expectancies they can generate with regard to violations in this structure, and the L2 learners’ level of L2 proficiency. Together these studies show that ERPs can successfully elucidate subtle differences in syntactic processing between L2 learners and native speakers, and among L2 learners at different levels of L2 proficiency, which are difficult to detect or that might have remained undetected with behavioural measures.

We examined the effects of concreteness and ambiguity on language processing. In Experiment 1, English–Spanish bilinguals translated words with a single translation. Contrary to past findings, we observed no concrete-word advantage in translation latency. In Experiment 2, English–Spanish bilinguals translated words with one and more than one translation. Words with multiple translations were translated more slowly and showed the typical concrete-word advantage. Words with one translation showed a reversal of the typical concrete-word advantage in latency. Further, concrete words were uninfluenced by ambiguity. In Experiment 3, we explored whether the interaction between concreteness and ambiguity was a general property of the language processing system. Supporting this idea, in a monolingual lexical decision task, we found an interaction between concreteness and number of meanings analogous to the interaction in translation. We discuss the common mechanism that may lead to this interaction in both within and cross-language processing.