Processing and learning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study

Abstract

Research to date suggests that textual enhancement may positively affect the learning of multiword combinations known as collocations, but may impair recall of unenhanced text. However, the attentional mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. In this study, 38 undergraduate students were divided into two groups: one read a text containing typographically enhanced collocations (ET group) and the other read the same text with unenhanced collocations (the baseline text, or BT group). While reading, participants' eye movements were recorded with an eye-tracker. Results showed that the ET group spent significantly longer time processing target collocations, and performed better than the BT group in a post-reading collocation test. However, apart from the enhanced collocations, the ET group recalled significantly less unenhanced text than the BT group. Further investigation of eye fixation data showed that the ET group spent substantially longer time processing collocations which, according to a pretest, they were not familiar with than did the BT group, whereas the two groups did not differ significantly in their processing of familiar collocations. Collectively, the results suggest that the trade-off between collocation learning and recall of unenhanced text is due to additional cognitive resources being allocated to enhanced collocations that are new to the reader.

Increasing the effectiveness of teaching L2 formulaic sequences through motivational strategies and mental imagery: A classroom experiment

“…Typographical enhancement has been one of the methods examined to increase attention to formulaic sequences. The few available studies suggest that different types of typographical enhancement promote the learning of formulaic sequences, including underlining (e.g., Boers, Demecheleer, He, Deconinck, Stengers, & Eyckmans, 2017;Szudarski & Carter, 2016), and bolding (e.g., Choi, 2017;Peters, 2012).…”

Attention-direction versus retrieval practice: which fosters the productive recall of German formulaic sequences best?

“…Boers et al, 2006;Jones & Haywood, 2004;Stengers, Boers, Housen, & Eyckmans, 2010) or typographic enhancement (e.g. Boers, Demecheleer, He, Deconinck, Stengers, & Eyckmans, 2017;Choi, 2017;Peters, 2012;Sonbul & Schmitt, 2013;Szudarski & Carter, 2016) and have revealed beneficial effects. Drawing learners' attention to prevalent sound repetition in FS (alliteration, assonance, rhyme) has also been shown effective for recalling formulaic sequences (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2005;Boers, Lindstromberg, & Eyckmans, 2012;Eyckmans, & Lindstromberg, 2017;, as well as using mental imagery to help learners remember the meaning of figurative idioms (Steinel, Hulstijn & Steinel, 2007;Szczepaniak & Lew, 2011).…”

A quantitative analysis of collocations in Brazilian and British students’ academic writing

“…pointed out by Choi (2016), who states that formulaic sequences can be used as an overarching term for collocations. Wray (2000) explains that we retrieve collocations from our memories every time we use them.…”

“…Hence, lists that present isolated words do not help in the improvement of writing, especially if we take into account that fluency in a text is guaranteed mainly by the appropriate use of formulaic language (CHOI, 2016). Prodromou (2008) claims that mastering formulaic language is an important step towards the achievement of idiomatic production.…”