Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T19:42:36.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-language semantic and orthographic parafoveal processing by bilingual L1 German–L2 English readers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2023

Leigh B. Fernandez Open the ORCID record for Leigh B. Fernandez [Opens in a new window] ,
Christoph Scheepers Open the ORCID record for Christoph Scheepers [Opens in a new window]  and
Shanley E. M. Allen Open the ORCID record for Shanley E. M. Allen [Opens in a new window]
Leigh B. Fernandez*
Affiliation:
University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Kaiserslautern, Germany
Christoph Scheepers
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Shanley E. M. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Kaiserslautern, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Leigh B. Fernandez University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Faculty of Social Sciences, Erwin-Schrödinger-Straße, Building 57, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany Email: leigh.fernandez@rptu.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent study, Fernandez et al. (2021) investigated parafoveal processing in L1 English and L1 German–L2 English readers using the gaze contingent boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975). Unexpectedly, L2 readers derived an interference from a non-cognate translation parafoveal mask (arrow vs. pfeil), but derived a benefit from a German orthographic parafoveal mask (arrow vs. pfexk) when reading in English. The authors argued that bilingual readers incurred a switching cost from the complete German word, and derived a benefit by keeping both lexicons active from the partial German word. In this registered report, we further test this finding with L1 German–L2 English participants using improved items, but with the sentences presented in German. We were able to replicate the non-cognate translation interference but not the orthographic facilitation. Follow up comparisons showed that all parafoveal masks evoked similar inhibition, suggesting that bilingual readers do not process non-cognate semantic or orthographic information parafoveally.

Keywords

parafoveal processingcross-linguistic influenceeye-trackingword recognition
Type
Registered Report
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , May 2024 , pp. 515 - 529
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open materials Open data
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. 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.)

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

References

Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2001). Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 875–890. doi: 10.3758/BF03194444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. A. E., Mak, L., Keyvani Chahi, A., & Bialystok, E. (2018). The Language and Social Background Questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behavioral Research Methods, 50, 250–263. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antúnez, M., Mancini, S., Hernández-Cabrera, J. A., Hoversten, L. J., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2021). Cross-linguistic semantic preview benefit in Basque-Spanish bilingual readers: Evidence from fixation-related potentials. Brain and Language, 214, 104905. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104905CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2019). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 1.1-21.Google Scholar
Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch costs (do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 568–585. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.792822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), p.16. doi: 10.5334/joc.72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 10(8), e0134008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1630–1645. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0836-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. doi: 10.1017/S1366728902003012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: evidence for nonselective lexical access. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663–679. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 57–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, L. B., Scheepers, C., & Allen, S. E. (2020). The impact of uninformative parafoveal masks on L1 and late L2 speakers. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(6). doi: 10.16910/jemr.13.6.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, L. B., Allen, S. E. M., & Scheepers, C. (2021). Crosslinguistic differences in parafoveal semantic and orthographic processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83, 3183–3200. doi :10.3758/s13414-021-02329-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friel, B. M., & Kennison, S. M. (2001). Identifying German-English cognates, false cognates, and non-cognates: Methodological issues and descriptive norms. Billingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(3), 249–274. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166–190. doi: 10.1037/a0033670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1150–1170. doi: 10.1037/a0020233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2020). Zooming in on zooming out: Partial selectivity and dynamic turning of bilingual language control during reading. Cognition, 195, 104118. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutzler, F., Schuster, S., Marx, C., & Hawelka, S. (2019). An investigation of parafoveal masks with the incremental boundary paradigm. PloS one, 14(2), e0203013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyönä, J., & Häikiö, T. (2005). Is emotional content obtained from parafoveal words during reading? An eye movement analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(6), 475–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00479.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2013). The TenTenCorpus Family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL (pp. 125–127).Google Scholar
Jouravlev, O., & Jared, D. (2018). Cross-script orthographic and phonological preview benefits. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 11–19. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1226906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Bojesen, C. (2019). lmerTest: Tests in linear effects models, R package version 3.1-0.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 259–284. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laubrock, J., & Hohenstein, S. (2012). Orthographic consistency and parafoveal preview benefit: A resource-sharing account of language differences in processing of phonological and semantic codes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 292–293. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000209CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauro, J., & Schwartz, A. I. (2017). Bilingual non-selective lexical access in sentence contexts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 217–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381–390. doi: 10.1037/a0014875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1171). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203–208. doi: 10.3758/BF03204766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Cerebrum: the Dana forum on brain science, 2012(13), 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Marx, C., Hawelka, S., Schuster, S., & Hutzler, F. (2015). An incremental boundary study on parafoveal preprocessing in children reading aloud: Parafoveal masks overestimate the preview benefit. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 549–561. doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1008494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matin, E. (1974). Saccadic suppression: A review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pivneva, I., Mercier, J., & Titone, D. (2014). Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 403(3), 787–796. doi: 10.1037/a0035583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 65–81. doi: 10.1016/0010-028590005-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Schotter, E. R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1617–1628. doi: 10.1037/a0036763Google ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), 206–226. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90009-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 473–483. doi: 10.1037/h0080111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., & Drieghe, D. (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 1067–1072. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0582-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and enviorment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., & Sheridan, H. (2015). E-Z Reader: An overview of the model and two recent applications. In Pollatsek, A. & Treiman, R. (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of reading (p. 277–290). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1), 125–157. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, D. J., Vasishth, S., Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 104038. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Duyck, W., Brysbaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2009). Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory & Cognition 37, 569–586. doi: 10.3758/MC.37.5.569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 619–633. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schotter, E. R., & Fennell, A. M. (2019). Readers can identify the meanings of words without looking at them: Evidence from regressive eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1697–1704. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01662-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schotter, E. R., & Jia, A. (2016). Semantic and plausibility preview benefit effects in English: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1839–1866. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 5–35. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2Google Scholar
Schotter, E. R., Lee, M., Reiderman, M., & Rayner, K. (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, J. L., Kliegl, R., & Yan, M. (2012). Parafoveal semantic information extraction in traditional Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica, 141(1), 17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.06.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 88–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(1), 1–8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00174Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 431–451. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasilev, R. M., & 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 and Review, 24, 666–689. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1147-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan-Evans, A., Liversedge, S. P., Fitzsimmons, G., & Jones, M. W. (2020). Syntactic co-activation in natural reading. Visual Cognition, 28(10), 541–556. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2020.1841866CrossRefGoogle 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, 67(4), 703–727. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.826258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016a). Semantic preview benefit in English: Individual differences in the extraction and use of parafoveal semantic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 837–854. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016b). Is semantic preview benefit due to relatedness or plausibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Peformance, 42(7), 939–952. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000200Google ScholarPubMed
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, 94, 119–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakeford, L., & Murray, W. (2013). Effects of parafoveal plausibility during reading. In Knauffm, M., Sebanz, N., Pauen, M., & Wachsmuth, I., I. (Eds.), 35th annual meeting of the Contive Science Society: Cooperative minds: Social interaction and group dynamics (p. 3723–3728). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Wang, A., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Yan, M. (2014). Reading proficiency modulates parafoveal processing efficiency: Evidence from reading Chinese as a second language. Acta Psychologica, 152, 29–33. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, A., Yeon, J., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Yan, M. (2016). Cross-language parafoveal semantic processing: Evidence from Korean-Chinese bilinguals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 285–290. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0876-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 41(4), 1118–1129. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000093Google ScholarPubMed
Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561–566. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.561CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Lexical and sub-lexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 1069–1075. doi:10.1037/a0026935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, M., Wang, A., Song, H., & Kliegl, R. (2019). Parafoveal processing of phonology and semantics during the reading of Korean sentences. Cognition, 193, 104009. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J., Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 1031–1052. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Fernandez et al. supplementary material

Fernandez et al. supplementary material
Download Fernandez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2 MB