Can Heritage Speakers Predict Lexical and Morphosyntactic Information in Reading?

Abstract

Ample evidence suggests that monolingual adults can successfully generate lexical and morphosyntactic predictions in reading and that correct predictions facilitate sentence comprehension. In this eye-tracking corpus reading study, we investigate whether the same is true for reading in heritage language. Specifically, we ask whether heritage speakers (HSs) of Russian are able to anticipate lexical and/or morphosyntactic information of the upcoming words in the sentence and whether they differ in the predictions from monolingual children and L2 learners. We are also interested in whether the literacy level (i.e., Russian literacy experience or reading fluency in English) influences lexical and morphosyntactic prediction. Our results indicate that HSs as well as other groups were able to anticipate the specific lexical item, and the ability was contingent on the Russian literacy experience and reading fluency in dominant English as evident in some of the early and late eye-tracking measures. Similar to children and L2 learners, the word class and the verb number predictability affected reading times in HSs, but HSs were the only group to anticipate the number of the upcoming noun. We discuss findings in respect to the utility account of the bilingual prediction and divergent attainment trajectory of the heritage language development.

Practice beats age: co-activation shapes heritage speakers’ lexical access more than age of onset

“…As for language use effects, we anticipate that greater language use will produce more fixations to target verbs. This is in line with studies showing that greater language use facilitates morphosyntactic processing (L2 learners: Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short, 2018 ; HSs: Foote, 2011 ; Caffarra et al, 2017 ; Keating, 2022 ) and prediction (HSs: Parshina et al, 2022 ), as well as L2 sound discrimination ( Flege and MacKay, 2004 ; Black et al, 2020 ), monolingual-like pronunciation in HSs ( Lloyd-Smith et al, 2019 ), and reduced L2 accent ( Guion et al, 2000 ). Lastly, we postulate that language use will have a stronger impact on prediction than language proficiency in both HSs and L2 learners, but particularly in the HSs.…”

“…Four online HS studies did not measure language use, but their findings appeared to be attributable to language use and exposure. These HS studies employed written tasks, using self-paced reading ( Foote, 2011 ), eye-tracking ( Keating, 2022 ; Parshina et al, 2022 ), and ERPs ( Caffarra et al, 2017 ). In Foote, HSs and bilingual native speakers raised abroad were equally sensitive to gender and number agreement violations.…”

“…While research comparing monolinguals to both L2 learners and HSs could tease apart AoO from language experience, these studies are often inconclusive. Written mode studies (e.g., Foote, 2011 ; Keating, 2022 ; Parshina et al, 2022 ) are problematic because HSs perform auditory tasks better than written ones ( Bowles, 2011 ). Single-proficiency studies are unable to determine whether non-native processing is due to late AoO, low proficiency, or both (e.g., Sekerina and Trueswell, 2011 ; Montrul et al, 2013 ; Jegerski and Sekerina, 2020 ).…”

Benchmark measures of eye movements during reading in Russian children

“…The frequency was calculated from the sub-corpus of texts for children of the years 1920-2015 of the Russian National Corpus. For all words in the sentences, we collected predictability data in an online cumulative cloze task with 46 children (24 girls, M=11.3, range 9-12) who did not participate in the eye-tracking study (for details see Parshina et al, 2022b). Predictability was measured as the number of correct guesses divided by the total number of guesses.…”

Using self-paced reading in research with heritage speakers: a role for reading skill in the online processing of Spanish verb argument specifications

“…In a study that employed eyetracking with written stimulus sentences rather than auditory stimuli, Keating (2022) compared the processing of Spanish gender agreement among heritage speakers who had acquired their two languages simultaneously to those who had acquired them sequentially and found that online sensitivity occurred earlier in the eye movement record for the sequential bilinguals, who had longer exposure to just Spanish before beginning to acquire the majority language, English. Parshina et al (2022) also used eyetracking with text to show that heritage speakers of Russian could predict lexical and morphosyntactic information for upcoming words while reading and that this ability appeared to correlate with literacy experience in Russian. Lastly, Parshina et al (2021) used eyetracking to document some general tendencies in the reading behavior of heritage speakers of Russian as compared to monolingual readers, more specifically, that they read more slowly, that they were less likely to skip words (which is a normal part of fluent reading), and that they were more likely to reread than the comparison group.…”