title: Salience Effects: L2 Sentence Production as a Window on L1 Speech Planning.
abstract: Salience influences grammatical structure during production in a language-dependent manner because different languages afford different options to satisfy preferences. During production, speakers may always try to satisfy all syntactic encoding preferences (e.g., salient entities to be mentioned early, themes to be assigned the syntactic function of object) and adjust when this is not possible (e.g., a salient theme in English) or, alternatively, they may learn early on to associate particular conceptual configurations with particular syntactic frames (e.g., salient themes with passives). To see which of these alternatives is responsible for the production of passives when dealing with a salient theme, we looked at the second language effects of salience for English-speaking learners of Spanish, where the two preferences can be satisfied simultaneously by fronting the object (Prat-Sala and Branigan in J Mem Lang 42:168-182, 2000). In accordance with highly incremental models of language production, English speakers appear to quickly make use of the alternatives in the second language that allow observance of more processing preferences.
authors.affiliation: Linguistics, BCSS, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. iantonm2@une.edu.au.
authors.forename: Inés
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Antón-Méndez
authors.affiliation: Department of World Languages and Cultures, American University, Washington, DC, USA.
authors.forename: Chip
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Gerfen
authors.affiliation: Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Miguel
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ramos
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D019303:Multilingualism; D011578:Psycholinguistics; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Language production; Salience; Sentence planning; Syntactic function; Thematic roles
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2000 Jul;11(4):274-9
references.pmid: 11273384
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jun;49(7):1651-9
references.pmid: 21349278
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Nov;109(2):274-80
references.pmid: 18842259
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2011 Jun;40(3):195-203
references.pmid: 21120608
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Aug;22(8):1870-87
references.pmid: 19580390
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2005 Jul;34(4):365-99
references.pmid: 16142588
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013 Aug;66(8):1653-73
references.pmid: 23286440
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):423-40
references.pmid: 20192540
references.citation: Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):47-67
references.pmid: 4075761
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Jun;113(6):844-52
references.pmid: 12048043
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013 Aug;66(8):1601-19
references.pmid: 23286507
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2009 Apr;109(1):1-17
references.pmid: 19223065
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Feb;78(2):123-64
references.pmid: 11074248
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):null
references.pmid: 24403724
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2014 Dec;43(6):815-37
references.pmid: 24368710
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2010 Apr;39(2):119-39
references.pmid: 19787452
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):150-71
references.pmid: 1546115
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):234-72
references.pmid: 16637761
references.citation: Lang Cogn Process. 2006 Nov;21(7-8):1011-1029
references.pmid: 17710210
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014 Feb;67(2):304-18
references.pmid: 23786439
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2007 Nov;57(4):544-569
references.pmid: 18978929
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1993 Apr;25(2):188-230
references.pmid: 8482072