Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-cp4x8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T06:15:25.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the role of processing speed and automaticity in second language listening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2020

Bronson Hui Open the ORCID record for Bronson Hui [Opens in a new window]  and
Aline Godfroid Open the ORCID record for Aline Godfroid [Opens in a new window]
Bronson Hui*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Aline Godfroid
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: huibrons@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Second language (L2) listening requires efficient processing of continuing incoming information (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Even so, research into individual differences in L2 listening has mostly shed light on the role of linguistic knowledge measured without time pressure (e.g., Mecarty, 2000; Wang & Treffers-Daller, 2017; cf. Vafaee & Suzuki, 2020), leaving the role of processing speed and automaticity largely unexplored. To close this gap, we explored the determinants of successful listening using three processing tasks at lexical, syntactic, and propositional levels. Participants were 44 Chinese learners of English. Response accuracy afforded measures of vocabulary size, syntactic parsing skills, and formulation of propositional meaning. Reaction times and the coefficient of variation (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993) afforded processing speed and automaticity measures at each level. We found a hierarchical relationship between different levels of processing, whereby lower-level, lexical effects cascade up and are mediated by propositional comprehension in accounting for listening comprehension. The results highlight the importance of considering processing accuracy and speed at different levels of the linguistic hierarchy to explain variability among L2 listeners. Different from most previous studies, we argue for a need to consider the temporal aspects of processing, along with linguistic knowledge, in modeling L2 listening.

Keywords

automaticitycoefficient of variationlexical processingsyntactic processingsecond language listening
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , September 2021 , pp. 1089 - 1115
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Akamatsu, N. (2008). The effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System, 36, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. (2008). Selective listening. System, 36, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Services. (2019). Performance descriptors for the TOEFL iBT® test. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/pd-toefl-ibt.pdf Google Scholar
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61, 367–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014). L2 vocabulary learning from reading: Explicit and tacit lexical knowledge and the role of learner and item variables. Language Learning, 64, 365–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, L., Höhle, B., Brock, J., & Nickels, L. (2018). Investigating auditory processing of syntactic gaps with L2 speakers using pupillometry. Second Language Research, 34, 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2013). Cognitive validity. In Geranpaye, A. & Taylor, L. (Eds.), Examining listening: Research and practice in assessing second language listening (pp. 77–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fukkink, R. G., Hulstijn, J., & Simis, A. (2005). Does training in second-language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. Modern Language Journal, 89, 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A. (2020). Sensitive measures of vocabulary knowledge and processing: expanding Nation’s framework. In Webb, S. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 433–453). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2019). Adjusting regression models for overfitting in second language research. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 5, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, B. (2020). Processing variability in intentional and incidental word learning: An extension of Solovyeva and DeKeyser (2018). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huibregtse, I., Admiraal, W., & Meara, P. (2002). Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: Correction for guessing and response style. Language Testing, 19, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. M., & Godfroid, A. (2019). Should we listen or read? Modality effects in implicit and explicit knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 103, 648–664.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Trofimovich, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Introducing registered reports at Language Learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning, 68, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2010). EFL Vocabulary Tests. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
Mecarty, F. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning, 11, 323–348.Google Scholar
Mochida, K., & Harrington, M. (2006). The yes/no test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 23, 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Teaching & learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Scoring yes–no vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches. Language Testing, 29, 489–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pili-Moss, D., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Contributions of declarative and procedural memory to accuracy and automatization during second language practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 713–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rost, M. (2014). Listening in a multilingual world: The challenges of second language (L2) listening. International Journal of Listening, 28, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, S. J., Segalowitz, N. S., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2018). The role of procedural learning ability in automatization of L2 morphology under different learning schedules: An exploratory study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 923–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tanabe, M. (2016). Measuring second language vocabulary knowledge using a temporal method. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28, 118–142.Google Scholar
Vafaee, P., & Suzuki, Y. (2020). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary knowledge in second language listening ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65, 390–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56, 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2017). Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: The contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System, 65, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar