Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Chunk reading strategy training improves multiword processing by Japanese English learners

ORCiD logo with link | The University of Melbourne
 | The University of Melbourne
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Melbourne.

Published online: 24 February 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24019.kos
Abstract
The Chunk-and-Pass model suggests that language acquisition involves learning to appropriately chunk language input into multiword sequences and to form more abstract linguistic representations. While the theoretical model has gained widespread attention in the language sciences, there are limited studies that adopt this model, particularly in the context of second language (L2) learning and teaching research. This study examines the effects of Chunk Reading Strategy Training (CRST), which was developed based on the model, on multiword processing in low-proficiency Japanese learners of English. A treatment group received CRST, while a control group underwent standard block-format reading training. A phrasal decision test assessed online multiword processing at pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest stages. The results indicated improvement in response times post-intervention for the treatment group, and only in the delayed posttest for the control group. This study, therefore, discusses the theoretical implications and limitations of CRST.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The Chunk-and-Pass Model
  • Second language processing of multiword units and constructions
  • Chunk Reading Strategy Training
  • The present study
  • Methods
    • Participants
  • Materials
    • Chunk Reading Strategy Training
    • Reading training in Block Format
    • Measurement: Phrasal Decision Task
  • Procedure
  • Data cleaning and analysis
  • Results
    • L1 Speakers
    • Short-term treatment effects
    • Long-term treatment effects
  • Discussion
  • Educational implications and conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • Data Availability
  • Declarations
    • Conflicting Interests
  • References
References (54)
References
Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing by chunks. In R. C. Berwick, S. P. Abney, & C. Tenny (Eds.), Princople-based parsing. Springer, pp. 257–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 502–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1), 67–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, C. T., & Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. C. (2015a). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015b). Parsimonious mixed models. arXivpreprint arXiv:1506.04967. [URL]
Brehm, L., & Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 1251, 104334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, M., Savova, V., & Gibson, E. (2012). Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of memory and language, 66(1), 194–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Debeer, D. (2023). How to run linear mixed effects analysis for pairwise comparisons? A tutorial and a proposal for the calculation of standardized effect sizes. PsyArXive. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 391. e62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 40(3), 693–706. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Science, 24(1), 87–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2023, October 6). Global scale-Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic-and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 289–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 411, 1149–1160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition: A complex picture?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 249–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to arguments structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeong, H., & DeKeyser, R. (2023). Development of automaticity in processing L2 collocations: The roles of L1 collocational knowledge and practice condition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jin, H., Ji, L., Cheung, O. S., & Hayward, W. G. (2024). Facilitation and interference are asymmetric in holistic face processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2020). Meaningfulness beats frequency in multiword chunk processing. Cognitive Science, 44(10), e12885. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Fang, S. (2022). A generative approach to the instructed second language acquisition of Spanish se. Language Learning, 72(S1), 83–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2), 137–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, H., Shin, G. H., & Hwang, H. (2020). Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 825–847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kosaka, T. (2023). The Effects of Chunk Reading Training on the Syntactic Processing Skills and Reading Spans of Japanese Learners of English. Reading in a Foreign Language, 35(2). [URL]
(2024). The multiword processing by low-proficiency Japanese English learners: Meaningfulness and constructions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 672–691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2013). Fluency: Developmental and Remedial Practices-Revisited. In D. A. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 385–411). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., Hayes, B. K., & Navarro, D. J. (2019). Negative evidence and inductive reasoning in generalization of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 289–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenth, V. R. (2023). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. (Version 1.8.8) [Computer software]. Retrieved from [URL]
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65(S1), 185–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A–Z of applied linguistics research methods. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 941, 305–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., Pinto, V., Janda, B., Lam, E., … & van Boekel, M. (2015). Developing a reading comprehension intervention: Translating cognitive theory to educational practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 401, 28–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. [URL].
Mitsugi, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). Second language processing in Japanese scrambled sentences. Research in second language processing and parsing, 53(1), 159–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murakami, A., & Ellis, N. C. (2022). Effects of availability, contingency, and formulaicity on the accuracy of English grammatical morphemes in second language writing. Language Learning, 72(4), 899–940. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nagle, C. (2018). Motivation, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish: Investigating motivation as a time-varying predictor of pronunciation development. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 199–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Syntactic enhancement and second language literacy: An experimental study. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 180–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Y., Xu, Y., Collins, P., Farkas, G., & Warschauer, M. (2019). Scaffolding learning of language structures with visual-syntactic text formatting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1896–1912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [URL]
Saito, K., Hanzawa, K., Petrova, K., Kachlicka, M., Suzukida, Y., & Tierney, A. (2022). Incidental and multimodal high variability phonetic training: Potential, limits, and future directions. Language Learning, 72(4), 1049–1091. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior research methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tate, T. P., Collins, P., Xu, Y., Yau, J. C., Krishnan, J., Prado, Y., … & Warschauer, M. (2019). Visual-syntactic text format: Improving adolescent literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(4), 287–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Calude, A. (2015). The role of statistical learning in the acquisition of motion event construal in a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(5), 602–623. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, S., Schloss, P., Fletcher, C. R., Vogel, C. A., & Walker, R. C. (2005). Visual-syntactic text formatting: A new method to enhance online reading. Reading Online, 8(6), 1096–1232.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamashita, J., & Ichikawa, S. (2010). Examining reading fluency in a foreign language: Effects of text segmentation on L2 readers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(2), 263–283.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yi, W., & Zhong, Y. (2023). The processing advantage of multiword sequences: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & Dong, X. (2019). Input frequency and construction interference interactions in L2 development. Second Language Research, 35(4), 505–527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue