Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:24:14.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESPONSE TIME VARIABILITY SIGNATURES OF NOVEL WORD LEARNING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

Katya Solovyeva Open the ORCID record for Katya Solovyeva [Opens in a new window]  and
Robert DeKeyser
Katya Solovyeva*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katya Solovyeva, 2321 Symons Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. Email: kss@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Response time variability and its changes over time have been interpreted as indicative of levels of knowledge automatization. Predominantly, only declines in variability have been examined over the course of practice and growing second language proficiency. We discuss possible scenarios that may involve increasing, rather than declining variability, such as the establishment of new memory representations. We present repeated-measures lexical decision data on novel words encountered incidentally in a lexical decision task, which show increased variability as familiarity increases. Similar patterns were observed in our reanalyses of data from other novel word learning experiments with task demands different from ours: auditory presentation and a posttest after seven days (Brown & Gaskell, 2014), as well as picture-matching and production tests (Bartolotti & Marian, 2014). Jointly, these results suggest that when no prior representation of a word exists, increased variability may index learning during its initial stages.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 225 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

This work was supported in part by NSF-IGERT award DGE-0801465 to Colin Phillips. The authors thank Helen Brown for providing pertinent data for the calculation of the metrics used in this paper; Mike Long, Stephen O’Connell, and Ilina Kachinskse for comments on earlier drafts; and the University of Maryland Graduate Writing Center and Dr. Linda Macrí. We are grateful for the feedback from anonymous reviewers, whose comments resulted in considerable improvements to the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Akamatsu, N. (2008). The effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bartolotti, J., & Marian, V. (2014). Wordlikeness and novel word learning. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 146–151). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Brown, H., & Gaskell, G. (2014). The time-course of talker-specificity and lexical competition effects during word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1163–1179. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.916409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukkink, R. G., Hulstijn, J., & Simis, A. (2005). Does training of second-language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. doi:10.1017/S0142716409990014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultsch, D. F., MacDonald, S. W., Hunter, M. A., Levy-Bencheton, J., & Strauss, E. (2000). Intraindividual variability in cognitive performance in older adults: Comparison of adults with mild dementia, adults with arthritis, and healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 14, 588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, C. Y., & Yoshikawa, L. (2015). What does the coefficient of variation computed from eye-movement measures tell us about automatization in L2 sentence processing? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2014). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282. doi:10.1017/S0142716414000137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medler, D. A., & Binder, J. R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. Retrieved from http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/mcword/.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135. doi:10.1017/S0272263100004137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastatter, M., & Blair, B. (1984). Developmental influences on speech-motor equivalence: Some implications for articulatory disordered children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 995–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 49, 295–319.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., & 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. S., & 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. doi:10.1017/S0142716400010845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., Watson, V., & Segalowitz, S. (1995). Vocabulary skill: Single case assessment of automaticity of word recognition in a timed lexical decision task. Second Language Research, 11, 121–136.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
Supplementary material: File

Solovyeva and DeKeyser supplementary material

Solovyeva and DeKeyser supplementary material 1

Download Solovyeva and DeKeyser supplementary material(File)
File 19.4 KB