1887
Volume 13, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Proficient first-language (L1) readers of alphabetic languages that are read left-to-right typically have a perceptual span of 3–4 characters to the left and 14–15 characters to the right of the foveal fixation. Given that second-language (L2) processing requires more cognitive resources, we hypothesize that L2ers will have a smaller perceptual span than L1ers, and may rely on a compensatory risky reading strategy with a more symmetrical perceptual span similar to that seen in older L1 adults. Here, we test the size and symmetry of the perceptual span in German L1/English L2ers reading in English. We manipulate the amount of information available (3,6,9 characters-left/3,9,15 characters-right) during reading, and also account for the influence of English skills. Results show that L2ers benefit from an increase of window size from 3 to 6 characters to the left, and from 3 to 9 characters to the right, with higher-skilled L2ers further benefiting from an increase to 15 characters to the right. Contrary to our hypothesis, proficient L2ers exhibit an asymmetric perceptual span similar to college-aged L1ers and do not employ a compensatory risky reading strategy. This suggests that L1 and L2 language processing are not qualitatively different, but are rather modulated by individual differences.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22064.fer
2023-03-28
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrews, S., Veldre, A., & Clarke, I. E.
    (2020) Measuring lexical quality: The role of spelling ability. Behavioral Research Methods, 521, 2257–2282. 10.3758/s13428‑020‑01387‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01387-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 681, 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B.
    (2018) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 1.1–27.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cop, U., Drieghe, D., & Duyck, W.
    (2015) Eye movement patterns in natural reading: A comparison of monolingual and bilingual reading of a novel. PLoS ONE, 101, 1–38. 10.1371/journal.pone.0134008
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Fernandez, L. B., Bothe, R. & Allen, S. E. M.
    (2021) The role of L1 reading direction on L2 perceptual span: An eye tracking study investigating Hindi and Urdu. Second Language Research. 10.1177/02676583211049742
    https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211049742 [Google Scholar]
  6. Fernandez, L. B., Scheepers, C., & Allen, S. E. M.
    (2020) The impact of uninformative parafoveal masks on L1 and late L2 speakers. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(6), 3. 10.16910/jemr.13.6.3
    https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.6.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C. M., & Sandoval, T. C.
    (2008) More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 581, 787–814. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Häikiö, T., Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J.
    (2010) Development of parafoveal processing within and across words in reading: Evidence from the boundary paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 1982–1998. 10.1080/17470211003592613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003592613 [Google Scholar]
  9. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F.
    (1990) Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 161, 417–429. 10.1037//0278‑7393.16.3.417
    https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.3.417 [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaan, E.
    (2014) Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 257–282. 10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaan, E., & Grüter, T.
    (2021) Prediction in second language processing and learning: Advances and directions. In: Kaan, E. and Grüter, T. (Eds). Prediction in second-language processing and learning, pp1–24, John Benjamins. 10.1075/bpa.12.01kaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.12.01kaa [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Bojesen, C.
    (2018) lmerTest: Tests in linear effects models, R package version 3.1–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Leung, C. Y., Sugiura, M., Daisuke, A., & Yoshikawa, L.
    (2014) The perceptual span in second language reading: An eye-tracking study using a gaze-contingent moving window paradigm. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 41, 585–594. 10.4236/ojml.2014.45051
    https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2014.45051 [Google Scholar]
  14. McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K.
    (1975) The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 171, 578–586. 10.3758/BF03203972
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203972 [Google Scholar]
  15. Meixner, J. M., Nixon, J. S., & Laubrock, J.
    (2022) The perceptual span is dynamically adjusted in response to foveal load by beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1511, 1219–1232. 10.1037/xge0001140
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001140 [Google Scholar]
  16. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L.
    (2002) The lexical quality hypothesis. InL. Verhoeven, C. Elbro & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp.189–213). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/swll.11.14per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.11.14per [Google Scholar]
  17. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., Shaoul, C., Milin, P., & Baayen, H.
    (2014) The myth of cognitive decline: Non-linear dynamics of lifelong learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 61, 5–42. 10.1111/tops.12078
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12078 [Google Scholar]
  19. Rayner, K.
    (1986) Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(2), 211–236. 10.1016/0022‑0965(86)90037‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(86)90037-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., Stroud, M. J., Williams, C. C., & Pollatsek, A.
    (2006) The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 211, 448–465. 10.1037/0882‑7974.21.3.448
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.448 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., & Bélanger, N. N.
    (2010) Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychomic Bulletin & Review, 171, 834–839. 10.3758/PBR.17.6.834
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.834 [Google Scholar]
  22. Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Drieghe, D., Blythe, H. I., Joseph, H. S., White, S. J., & Rayner, K.
    (2013) Using E-Z Reader to examine the concurrent development of eye-movement control and reading skill. Developmental Review, 33(2), 110–149. 10.1016/j.dr.2013.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Risse, S., & Kliegl, R.
    (2011) Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 261, 451–460. 10.1037/a0021616
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021616 [Google Scholar]
  24. Salthouse, T. A.
    (2010) Selective review of cognitive aging. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 161, 754–760. 10.1017/S1355617710000706
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000706 [Google Scholar]
  25. Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K.
    (2012) Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 741, 5–35. 10.3758/s13414‑011‑0219‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Shook, A., Goldrick, M., Engstler, C., & Marian, V.
    (2015) Bilinguals show weaker lexical access during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(6), 789–802. 10.1007/s10936‑014‑9322‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9322-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Vasilev, M. R., & Angele, B.
    (2017) Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 241, 666–689. 10.3758/s13423‑016‑1147‑x
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1147-x [Google Scholar]
  28. Veldre, A., & Andrews, S.
    (2014) Lexical quality and eye movements: Individual differences in the perceptual span of skilled adult readers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 671, 703–727. 10.1080/17470218.2013.826258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.826258 [Google Scholar]
  29. Veldre, A., Wong, R., & Andrews, S.
    (2021) Reading proficiency predicts the extent of the right, but not left, perceptual span in older readers. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 831, 18–26. 10.3758/s13414‑020‑02185‑x
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02185-x [Google Scholar]
  30. von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B.
    (2017) False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 941, 119–133. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, J., Li, L., Li, S., Xie, F., Chang, M., Paterson, K. B., White, S. J., & McGowan, V. A.
    (2018) Adult Age Differences in Eye Movements During Reading: The Evidence From Chinese. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73(4), 584–593. 10.1093/geronb/gbw036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw036 [Google Scholar]
  32. Whitford, V., & Titone, D.
    (2015) Second-language experience modulates eye movements during first- and second-language sentence reading: Evidence from a gaze- contingent moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 411, 1118–1129. 10.1037/xlm0000093
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000093 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22064.fer
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22064.fer
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): L2 reading; parafoveal processing; perceptual span; risky reading strategy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error