Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cross-linguistic differences in parafoveal semantic and orthographic processing
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cross-linguistic differences in parafoveal semantic and orthographic processing
Do you wish to request the book?
Cross-linguistic differences in parafoveal semantic and orthographic processing
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cross-linguistic differences in parafoveal semantic and orthographic processing
2021
Overview
In this study we investigated parafoveal processing by L1 and late L2 speakers of English (L1 German) while reading in English. We hypothesized that L2ers would make use of semantic and orthographic information parafoveally
.
Using the gaze contingent boundary paradigm, we manipulated six parafoveal masks in a sentence (
Mark found th*e wood for the fire
; * indicates the invisible boundary): identical word mask (
wood
), English orthographic mask (
wook
), English string mask (
zwwl
), German mask (
holz
), German orthographic mask (
holn
), and German string mask (
kxfs
). We found an orthographic benefit for L1ers and L2ers when the mask was orthographically related to the target word (
wood
vs.
wook
) in line with previous L1 research. English L2ers did not derive a benefit (rather an interference) when a non-cognate translation mask from their L1 was used (
wood
vs.
holz
), but did derive a benefit from a German orthographic mask (
wood
vs.
holn)
. While unexpected, it may be that L2ers incur a switching cost when the complete German word is presented parafoveally, and derive a benefit by keeping both lexicons active when a partial German word is presented parafoveally (narrowing down lexical candidates). To the authors’ knowledge there is no mention of parafoveal processing in any model of L2 processing/reading, and the current study provides the first evidence for a parafoveal non-cognate orthographic benefit (but only with partial orthographic overlap) in sentence reading for L2ers. We discuss how these findings fit into the framework of bilingual word recognition theories.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
