Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 13:6 (2023) ► pp.854–872

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

Proficient L2 readers do not have a risky reading strategy

ORCiD logo with link | RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
 | RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
ORCiD logo with link | RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
Published online: 28 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22064.fer
Abstract
Proficient first-language (L1) readers of alphabetic languages that are read left-to-right typically have a perceptual span of 3–4 characters to the left and 14–15 characters to the right of the foveal fixation. Given that second-language (L2) processing requires more cognitive resources, we hypothesize that L2ers will have a smaller perceptual span than L1ers, and may rely on a compensatory risky reading strategy with a more symmetrical perceptual span similar to that seen in older L1 adults. Here, we test the size and symmetry of the perceptual span in German L1/English L2ers reading in English. We manipulate the amount of information available (3,6,9 characters-left/3,9,15 characters-right) during reading, and also account for the influence of English skills. Results show that L2ers benefit from an increase of window size from 3 to 6 characters to the left, and from 3 to 9 characters to the right, with higher-skilled L2ers further benefiting from an increase to 15 characters to the right. Contrary to our hypothesis, proficient L2ers exhibit an asymmetric perceptual span similar to college-aged L1ers and do not employ a compensatory risky reading strategy. This suggests that L1 and L2 language processing are not qualitatively different, but are rather modulated by individual differences.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Apparatus
    • 2.3Materials
    • 2.4Procedure
    • 2.5Analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Words per minute (WPM)
    • 3.2Forward saccade length (FSL)
    • 3.3First fixation duration (FFD)
    • 3.4Regression count
    • 3.5Combined analysis
  • 4.Discussion
  • Competing interests
  • Data availability
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Andrews, S., Veldre, A., & Clarke, I. E. (2020). Measuring lexical quality: The role of spelling ability. Behavioral Research Methods, 521, 2257–2282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 681, 255–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2018). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 1.1–27.1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cop, U., Drieghe, D., & Duyck, W. (2015). Eye movement patterns in natural reading: A comparison of monolingual and bilingual reading of a novel. PLoS ONE, 101, 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernandez, L. B., Bothe, R. & Allen, S. E. M. (2021). The role of L1 reading direction on L2 perceptual span: An eye tracking study investigating Hindi and Urdu. Second Language Research. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernandez, L. B., Scheepers, C., & Allen, S. E. M. (2020). The impact of uninformative parafoveal masks on L1 and late L2 speakers. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(6), 3. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C. M., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 581, 787–814. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Häikiö, T., Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2010). Development of parafoveal processing within and across words in reading: Evidence from the boundary paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 1982–1998. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 161, 417–429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 257–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (2021). Prediction in second language processing and learning: Advances and directions. In: Kaan, E. and Grüter, T. (Eds). Prediction in second-language processing and learning, pp 1–24, John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Bojesen, C. (2018). lmerTest: Tests in linear effects models, R package version 3.1–3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, C. Y., Sugiura, M., Daisuke, A., & Yoshikawa, L. (2014). The perceptual span in second language reading: An eye-tracking study using a gaze-contingent moving window paradigm. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 41, 585–594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 171, 578–586. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meixner, J. M., Nixon, J. S., & Laubrock, J. (2022). The perceptual span is dynamically adjusted in response to foveal load by beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1511, 1219–1232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., Shaoul, C., Milin, P., & Baayen, H. (2014). The myth of cognitive decline: Non-linear dynamics of lifelong learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 61, 5–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(2), 211–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., Stroud, M. J., Williams, C. C., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 211, 448–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., & Bélanger, N. N. (2010). Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychomic Bulletin & Review, 171, 834–839. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Drieghe, D., Blythe, H. I., Joseph, H. S., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2013). Using E-Z Reader to examine the concurrent development of eye-movement control and reading skill. Developmental Review, 33(2), 110–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 261, 451–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salthouse, T. A. (2010). Selective review of cognitive aging. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 161, 754–760. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 741, 5–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shook, A., Goldrick, M., Engstler, C., & Marian, V. (2015). Bilinguals show weaker lexical access during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(6), 789–802. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasilev, M. R., & Angele, B. (2017). Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 241, 666–689. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2014). Lexical quality and eye movements: Individual differences in the perceptual span of skilled adult readers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 671, 703–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veldre, A., Wong, R., & Andrews, S. (2021). Reading proficiency predicts the extent of the right, but not left, perceptual span in older readers. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 831, 18–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B. (2017). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 941, 119–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, J., Li, L., Li, S., Xie, F., Chang, M., Paterson, K. B., White, S. J., & McGowan, V. A. (2018). Adult Age Differences in Eye Movements During Reading: The Evidence From Chinese. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73(4), 584–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2015). Second-language experience modulates eye movements during first- and second-language sentence reading: Evidence from a gaze- contingent moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 411, 1118–1129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Fernandez, Leigh B. & Shanley E. M. Allen
2025. Reduced Capacity for Parafoveal Processing (ReCaPP) Leads to Differences in Prediction Between First and Second Language Readers of English. Journal of Eye Movement Research 18:2 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue