Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:45:20.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling effects of linguistic complexity on L2 processing effort: The case of eye movement in text reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2023

Xiaopeng Zhang Open the ORCID record for Xiaopeng Zhang [Opens in a new window]  and
Nan Gong
Xiaopeng Zhang*
Affiliation:
School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Shaanxi, China
Nan Gong
Affiliation:
School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Shaanxi, China
*
Corresponding author: Xiaopeng Zhang; Email: zhxpnwnu@126.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined how linguistic complexity features contribute to second language (L2) processing effort by analyzing the Dutch English-L2 learners’ eye movements from GECO and MECO, two eye-tracking corpora. Processing effort was operationalized as reading rate, mean fixation duration, regression rate, skipping rate, and mean saccade amplitude. In Study 1, the lexical, syntactic, and discoursal indices in 272 snippets of a novel in GECO were regressed against these eye-movement measures. The results showed that the one-component partial least square regression (PLS-R) models could explain 11%–37% of the variance in these eye-movement measures and outperformed eight readability formulas (six traditional and two recent cognitively inspired formulas based on the readers’ perception on text difficulty) in predicting L2 processing effort. In Study 2, the eye-tracking data from MECO were used to evaluate whether the findings from Study 1 could be applied more broadly. The results revealed that although the predictability of these PLS-R components decreased, they still performed better than the readability formulas. These findings suggest that the linguistic indices identified can be used to predict L2 text processing effort and provide useful implications for developing systems to assess text difficulty for L2 learners.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2024 , pp. 141 - 168
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open data Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdi, H. (2010). Partial least squares regression and projection on latent structure regression (PLS Regression). Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37, 639–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, F. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, Article 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, D. W. (2008). The psychology of language. Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Castelhano, M. S., & Rayner, K. (2008). Eye movements during reading, visual search, and scene perception: An overview. In Rayner, K., Shen, D., Bai, X., & Yan, G. (Eds.), Cognitive and cultural influences on eye movements (pp. 3–33). Tianjin People’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Chen, D., & Manning, C. D. (2014). A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Marton, Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 740–750). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Choi, J. S., & Crossley, S. A. (2020). ARTE: Automatic readability tool for English (Version 1.1) [Computer software]. https://linguisticanalysistools.org/arte.htmlGoogle Scholar
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, 10, Article e0134008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, T. C. (1976). Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research, 69, 176–183. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33, 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C., & Shipley, T. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1236–1241). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00568.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Skalicky, S., & Dascalu, M. (2019). Moving beyond classic readability formulas: New methods and new models. Journal of Research in Reading, 42, 541–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37–54.Google Scholar
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1949). The concept of readability. Elementary English, 26, 19–26.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (1981). An exploratory study of bilingual reading proficiency. In Hudelson, S. (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 33–102). Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25, 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Impact Information.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, L., Byrne, T., Johansson, E., Trygg, J., & Vikström, C. (2013). Multi-and megavariate data analysis basic principles and applications. Umetrics Academy.Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. (1997). Text difficulty and accessibility: Reading formulae and expert judgment. System, 25, 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00048-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfroid, A. (2019). Eye tracking in second language acquisition and bilingualism: A research synthesis and methodological guide. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of l2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, G. (1999). Classic readability formulas in an EFL context: Are they valid for Japanese speakers? [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Temple University.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, V. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90533-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175. doi:10.1017/S0272263116000176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). The role of age of acquisition and word frequency in reading: Evidence from eye fixation durations. Visual Cognition, 13, 846–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1999). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M., & Rechtzigel, K. (2012) Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 935–941. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0271-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2018). Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. Modern Language Journal, 102, 120–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., & Skalicky, S. (2018). Effects of lexical features, textual properties, and individual differences on word processing times during second language reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31, 1155–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command, Research Branch.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucheryavskiy, S. (2020). Mdatools: R package for chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 198, Article 103937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen–Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. D. (1987) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine-grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgia State University.Google Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. Modern Language Journal, 102, 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1030–1046. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behaviour Research Methods, 44, 325–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H. (2007). Probability distribution of dependency distance. Glottometrics, 15, 1–12.Google Scholar
Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12, 639–646.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehmood, T., Liland, K. H., Snipen, L., & Sæbø, S. (2012). A review of variable selection methods in partial least squares regression. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 118, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2012.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahatame, S. (2020). Causal and semantic relations in second language discourse processing: An eye-tracking study (No. 3853). EasyChair. https://easychair.org/publications/preprint/GH9DGoogle Scholar
Nahatame, S. (2021). Text readability and processing effort in second language reading: A computational and eye-tracking investigation. Language Learning, 71(4), 1004–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13–38). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öksüz, D., Brezina, V., & Rebuschat, P. (2021), Collocational processing in L1 and L2: The effects of word frequency, collocational frequency, and association. Language Learning, 71, 55–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Chace, K., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rashotte, C., & Torgesen, J. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188. https://www.jstor.org/stable/747754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C., & Schmitt, D. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Longman.Google Scholar
Senter, R. J., & Smith, E. A. (1967) Automated readability index. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Aerospace Medical Division.Google Scholar
Siegelman, N, Schroeder, S., Acartürk, C., Ahn, H., Alexeeva, S., Amenta, S., Bertram, R., Bonandrini, R., Brysbaert, M., Chernova, D., Fonseca, S., Dirix, N., Duyck, W., Fella, A., Frost, R., Gattei, C., Kalaitzi, A., Kwon, N., Lõo, K. … & Kuperman, V. (2022). Expanding horizons of cross-linguistic research on reading: The Multilingual Eye-Movement Corpus (MECO). Behavior Research Methods, 54, 2843–2863. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01772-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sui, L., Dirix, N., Woumans, E., & Duyck, W. (2022). GECO-CN: Ghent Eye-tracking COrpus of sentence reading for Chinese-English bilinguals. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01931-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmalec, A., Brysbaert, M., & Duyck, W. (2012). Working memory and (second) language processing. In Altarriba, J. & Isurin, L. (Eds.), Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and applied approaches (pp. 74–94). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, D., Sena, W. R., Carmona, H. A., Moreira, A. A., Makse, H. A., & Andrade, J. S. Jr. (2021). Eye-tracking as a proxy for coherence and complexity of texts. PloS one, 16, Article e0260236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wold, S., Johansson, E., & Cocchi, M. (1993). PLS—Partial least squares projections to latent structures . In Kubinyi, H. (Ed.), 3D QSAR in drug design, theory, methods, and applications. ESCOM Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2015). Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research, 31, 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Zhang and Gong supplementary material

Appendices 1-8

Download Zhang and Gong supplementary material(File)
File 67.1 KB