Task Type in Reading Span Tests Matters: An Eye Movement Study

Abstract

Reading span tests (RSTs) are commonly used to measure working memory (WM) capacity in L2 research. RSTs require simultaneous processing (secondary task) and storage (primary task) of information. However, the type of the secondary task varies from one study to another. Since syntactic and semantic processing in the L2 might be different, this study examined how the eye movements of late L2 learners changed when RSTs in the L2 involving syntactic accuracy vs. semantic plausibility judgment as the secondary task were administered. The findings indicated that eye movements displayed different patterns in semantically and syntactically anomalous sentences. Additionally, eye movement patterns of the participants were similar to those of native speakers reported in previous L1 (English) research in terms of processing semantic anomaly, but not syntactic inaccuracy.

Keywords

• Working memory,Reading span tests,Secondary task,Eye movements,L2 sentence processing

Task Type in Reading Span Tests Matters: An Eye Movement Study

Abstract

Reading span tests (RSTs) are commonly used to measure working memory (WM) capacity in L2 research. RSTs require simultaneous processing (secondary task) and storage (primary task) of information. However, the type of the secondary task varies from one study to another. Since syntactic and semantic processing in the L2 might be different, this study examined how the eye movements of late L2 learners changed when RSTs in the L2 involving syntactic accuracy vs. semantic plausibility judgment as the secondary task were administered. The findings indicated that eye movements displayed different patterns in semantically and syntactically anomalous sentences. Additionally, eye movement patterns of the participants were similar to those of native speakers reported in previous L1 (English) research in terms of processing semantic anomaly, but not syntactic inaccuracy. 

Keywords

• Working memory,Reading span tests,Secondary task,Eye movements,L2 sentence processing

References

1. Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 206–219.
2. Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–44.
3. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1989). The role of working memory in language comprehension. In D. K. Klahr and K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 31–68). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
5. Clifton, C., Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2006) Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S.Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–371). Oxford: Elsevier.
6. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
7. Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). A on-line look at sentence processing in a second language. In R. Herrida & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). North Holland: Elsevier Science.
8. Frenck-Mestre, C. & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.

9. Friedman, N. P. & Miyake, A. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158.
10. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 103–128.
11. Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.
12. van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language learning: Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 26, 43–74.
13. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354.
14. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2007). Strategy use in the reading span test: An analysis of eye movements and reported encoding strategies. Memory, 15(6), 634–646.
15. Leeser, M.J., (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.
16. Morgan-Short, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). The neurocognition of second language. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 282–299). New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Murray, W. S., & Rowan, M.(1998). Early, mandatory, pragmatic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(1), 1-22.
18. Ni,W., Fodor, J. D., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1998). Anomaly detection: eye movement patterns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 515–539.
19. Rayner, K.,Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P.(2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301.
20. Roberts, L. (2010). Parsing the L2 input, an overview: Investigating L2 learners’ processing of syntactic ambiguities and dependencies in real-time comprehension. In G. D.Véronique (Ed.), Language, interaction and acquisition [Special issue], (pp. 189–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21. Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Majewski, H. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun–noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,33(6), 1162–1169.
22. Tirre, W. C., & Pena, C. M. (1992). Investigation of functional working memory in the reading span test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 462–472.
23. Traxler, M.J., Pickering, M.J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.
24. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 127–154.
25. Ullman, M. T. (2001a). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37–69.
26. Ullman, M. T. (2001b). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105–122.
27. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270.
28. Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29. Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 315–339.
30. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(1), 51–79.