Individual Chunking Ability Predicts Efficient or Shallow L2 Processing: Eye-Tracking Evidence From Multiword Units in Relative Clauses

Abstract

Behavioral studies on language processing rely on the eye-mind assumption, which states that the time spent looking at text is an index of the time spent processing it. In most cases, relatively shorter reading times are interpreted as evidence of greater processing efficiency. However, previous evidence from L2 research indicates that non-native participants who present fast reading times are not always more efficient readers, but rather shallow parsers. Because earlier studies did not identify a reliable predictor of variability in L2 processing, such uncertainty around the interpretation of reading times introduces a potential confound that undermines the credibility and the conclusions of online measures of processing. The present study proposes that a recently developed modulator of online processing efficiency, namely, chunking ability, may account for the observed variability in L2 online reading performance. L1 English – L2 Spanish learners’ eye movements were analyzed during natural reading. Chunking ability was predictive of overall reading speed. Target relative clauses contained L2 Verb-Noun multiword units, which were manipulated with regards to their L1-L2 congruency. The results indicated that processing of the L1-L2 incongruent units was modulated by an interaction of L2 chunking ability and level of knowledge of multiword units. Critically, the data revealed an inverse U-shaped pattern, with faster reading times in both learners with the highest and the lowest chunking ability scores, suggesting fast integration in the former, and lack of integration in the latter. Additionally, the presence of significant differences between conditions was correlated with individual chunking ability. The findings point at chunking ability as a significant modulator of general L2 processing efficiency, and of cross-language differences in particular, and add clarity to the interpretation of variability in the online reading performance of non-native speakers.

When Native Speakers Are Not “Native‐Like:” Chunking Ability Predicts (Lack of) Sensitivity to Gender Agreement During Online Processing

“…The present data thus support a view in which increasing chunking ability is directly associated with sensitivity to the regularities in the input: this may either result in facilitation, where linguistic patterns are predictable (NP2 attachment); or in increased relative costs, where expectations run counter to the incoming signal (NP1 attachment). This view fits well with previous evidence of the effect of chunking ability on second language processing (Pulido, 2021;Pulido et al, under review); but while lack of sensitivity in non-native speakers could be attributed to lower linguistic proficiency or to greater processing demands (Hopp, 2013), none of those factors would apply here. The results add an important dimension to previous work that reported variability during native language processing by associating said variability to individuals' chunking ability.…”

CALL and professionalisation: short papers from EUROCALL 2021

“…Chunking complex sentences into clauses, for example, may help learners process their structure, while smaller chunks like adjective-preposition pairs can raise awareness of collocations such as interested in. Eye-tracking research by Pulido (2021) has demonstrated that L2 readers who chunked while reading were more efficient readers. However, chunking alone is not likely to improve comprehension; it is necessary to accurately connect and parse the relationships between chunks to form meaning (Nishida, 2013).…”

From eye movements to scanpath networks: A method for studying individual differences in expository text reading

“…The rapid increase in the use of eye-tracking methodology has been based on the “eye-mind assumption” that posits a tight link between human eye gaze and the focus of attention (Just & Carpenter, 1980 ). However, this assumption has been challenged by several studies in the literature (e.g., Kliegl et al, 2006 ; Mitchell et al, 2008 ; Schindler & Lilienthal, 2019 ), although the exact nature of the eye-mind relationship remains debatable (Pulido, 2021 ; Sharafi et al, 2020 ; Strohmaier et al, 2020 ). Previous eye-tracking studies of text reading (Rayner, 1978 , 1998 ) have established a number of informative eye-movement features, including fixation (50–1500 ms pause of visual gaze on a segment), saccade (quick movement between two phases of fixations in the same direction), and regression (backward saccade to a previously visited segment).…”