Previous studies have shown that reading is an important source of incidental second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition. However, we still do not have a clear picture of what happens when readers encounter unknown words. Combining offl ine (vocabulary tests) and online (eye-tracking) measures, the incidental acquisition of vocabulary knowledge from reading and the online reading of unknown lexical items were examined. L2 English learners read a story containing unknown items while their eye movements were recorded. After eight exposures, L2 readers recognized the form and the meaning of 86% and 75% of the target nonwords, respectively, whereas they recalled the meaning of 55% of the nonwords. After three to four encounters, nonwords were read signifi cantly faster, and by eight encounters they were read in a similar manner to previously known real words. Results also showed a positive relationship between new vocabulary learning outcomes and online reading, with longer reading times associated with higher vocabulary recall test scores. The study was also conducted with fi rst language (L1) readers to provide baseline data for comparison. Results confi rmed the L2 fi ndings while also indicating an interesting L1-L2 distinction in the rate rather than in the ultimate outcome of the acquisition process.

Previous studies have shown that intentional learning through explicit instruction is effective for the acquisition of collocations in a second language (L2) (e.g. Peters, 2014Peters, , 2015, but relatively little is known about the effectiveness of incidental approaches for the acquisition of L2 collocations. The present study examined the incidental acquisition of collocational knowledge when learners encounter adjective-pseudoword collocations while reading. Forty-one L2 learners read a story containing six target collocations in a classroom setting. One week after the reading they were interviewed about their knowledge of the form, meaning and collocation of the target items (at recall and recognition levels). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups, i.e. the 4-repetition group and the 8-repetition group. Results showed that collocational knowledge can be learnt incidentally from reading; that it is learnt at a similar rate to other lexical components such as form and meaning of individual words;and that the frequency manipulation in this study did not seem to have a significant effect on the acquisition of any of the aspects examined. KeywordsIncidental learning, collocations, vocabulary, multi-word units, reading 2 I IntroductionVocabulary is an essential component of language and it has a tendency to occur in multiword units (Schmitt, 2010), i.e. lexical units which consist of more than one word (McCarthy, 1990). However, despite the importance of mastering knowledge of different types of multi-word units for achieving high levels of language proficiency and fluency in a second language (L2) (e.g. Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, Demecheleer, 2006;Granger, 1998;Stengers, Boers, Housen, Eyckmans, 2011), research into the teaching and learning of multi-word units is still scarce.Vocabulary teaching traditionally tended to focus on individual words (Schmitt, 2010) and consequently, vocabulary learning studies also focused on examining the best approaches to teach and learn single words. However, vocabulary instruction research has recently started to examine the acquisition of lexical items beyond the single word, and collocation has been one of the types of multi-word units examined. Mackin (1978) already noted that learners of English could learn collocations from repeated exposures in reading or by explicit teaching in the classroom. Recent studies on the learning of collocations have indeed been conducted around these two main approaches: explicit/intentional learning and incidental learning. Intentional learning is the learning that occurs when there is a particular intention to learn a set of items (Nation, 2001), whereas incidental vocabulary learning is the learning that occurs when learners' attention is focused on understanding messages without a particular intention to learn a set of words (Ellis, 1999). The majority of empirical studies on the acquisition of collocations have examined intentional learning through explicit teaching/learning (e.g. Boers, Deme...

With eye-tracking technology the eye is thought to give researchers a window into the mind. Importantly, eye-tracking has significant advantages over traditional online processing measures: chiefly that it allows for more ‘natural’ processing as it does not require a secondary task, and that it provides a very rich moment-to-moment data source. In recognition of the technology’s benefits, an ever increasing number of researchers in applied linguistics and second language research are beginning to use it. As eye-tracking gains traction in the field, it is important to ensure that it is established in an empirically sound fashion. To do this it is important for the field to come to an understanding about what eye-tracking is, what eye-tracking measures tell us, what it can be used for, and what different eye-tracking systems can and cannot do. Further, it is important to establish guidelines for designing sound research studies using the technology. The goal of the current review is to begin to address these issues.

Reading-while-listening has been shown to be advantageous in second language learning. However, research to date has not addressed how the addition of auditory input changes reading itself. Identifying how reading differs in reading-while-listening and reading-only might help explain the advantages associated with the former. The aim of the present study was to provide a detailed description of reading patterns with and without audio. To address this, we asked first language (L1) and second language (L2) speakers to read two passages (one in a reading-only mode and another in a reading-while-listening mode) while their eye movements were monitored. In reading-only, L2 readers had more and longer fixations (i.e. slower reading) than L1 readers. In reading-while-listening, eye-movement patterns were very similar in the L1 and L2. In general, neither group of participants fixated the word that they were hearing, although the L2 readers’ eye movements were more aligned to the auditory input. When reading and listening were not aligned, both groups’ eye movements generally preceded the audio. However, L2 readers had more cases where their fixations lagged behind the audio. We consider why reading slightly ahead of the audio could explain some of the benefits attributed to reading-while-listening contexts.

This study examined the effect of pre‐reading vocabulary instruction on learners’ attention and vocabulary learning. We randomly assigned participants (L1 = 92; L2 = 88) to one of four conditions: pre‐reading instruction, where participants’ received explicit instruction on six novel items and read a text with the items repeated eight times; reading‐only, where participants simply read the same text with the novel items repeated eight times; reading‐baseline, where participants read the same text with the repeated items replaced by known (control) words; and instruction‐only, where participants received explicit instruction on the novel items and read an unrelated text. Eye‐tracking was used to measure amount of attention to the vocabulary during reading. We assessed knowledge of the target vocabulary in three immediate posttests (form recognition, meaning recall, and meaning recognition). Results showed that pre‐reading instruction (plus reading the text) led to both more vocabulary learning and a processing advantage. Cumulative reading times were a significant predictor of meaning recognition scores.