Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:10:35.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen's 2009 study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2014

HYOJUNG LIM  and
ALINE GODFROID
HYOJUNG LIM*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
ALINE GODFROID*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Hyojung Lim, Second Language Studies, Michigan State University, B270 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: [email protected]; or Aline Godfroid, Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, B253 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: [email protected]
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Hyojung Lim, Second Language Studies, Michigan State University, B270 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: [email protected]; or Aline Godfroid, Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, B253 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the automatization of sentence processing using the coefficient of variation (CV), a measure of intraindividual processing stability (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993). A smaller CV (i.e., standard deviation to reaction time [RT] ratio) and a positive CV-RT correlation are taken to index increased automatization. Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen (2009) were the first to try to validate the use of CV at the sentence level; however, they did not find any evidence for automatization in their CV analyses. Forty Korean English as a second language students (20 intermediate, 20 advanced) and 20 native speakers performed three speeded tasks in English: a semantic classification task, a sentence verification task, and a sentence construction task. The results revealed that, consistent with findings from previous word recognition studies, the CV in the sentence-level tasks decreased as participants’ proficiency level increased. Although the CV-RT correlation in the sentence verification task was not always significant, no counterevidence against Segalowitz and Segalowitz’ (1993) hypothesis was found. The sentence construction task discriminated better between groups than the sentence verification task. We argue that the CV may be a valid measure of automatization at the sentence level, provided the tasks used target lower-level processes such as word recognition, parsing, and semantic proposition formation.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , September 2015 , pp. 1247 - 1282
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.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
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
Baars, B. J., & Franklin, S. (2003). How conscious experience and working memory interact. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 166–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bekoff, M. (1997). Quantitative studies of three areas of classical ethology: Social dominance, behavioral taxonomy and behavioral variability. In Hazlett, B. A. (Ed.), Quantitative methods in the study of animal behavior (pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. B. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breznitz, Z. (2006). Reading fluency: Synchronization of processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlton, M., Robertson, R., Carlton, L., & Newell, K. (1985). Response timing variability: Coherence of kinematic and EMG parameters. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 301–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, T. H., Brown, T. L., Vavrus, L. G., & Evans, M. A. (1990). Cognitive skill maps and cognitive skill profiles: Componential analysis of individual differences in children's reading efficiency. In Carr, T. H. & Levy, B. A. (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 1–55). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. E. (1990). Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R., & Dawkins, M. (1973). Decisions and the uncertainty of behavior. Behaviour, 45, 83–103.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2011). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 4–34.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007a). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007b). Skill acquisition theory. In Williams, J. & Van Patten, B. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flehming, H. C., Steinborn, M., Langner, R., Scholz, A., & Westhoff, K. (2007). Response time variability in serial choice RT tasks. Psychology Science, 49, 132–149.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J., Gass, S. M., & Ellis, R. (2013, October). Multiple perspectives on grammaticality judgments: Do different types of knowledge imply different types of processing? Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Syntax, 15, 1–5. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0010093585.33576.65Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–27.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 147–168. doi:10.1075/eurosla.6.10harCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasting, A. S., & Kotz, S. A. (2008). Speeding up syntax: On the relative timing and automaticity of local phrase structure and morphosyntactic processing as reflected in event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1207–1219. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20083CrossRefGoogle 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
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00397.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, G., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An Alternative algorithm for. American Political Science Review, 95, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Cross-linguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
McManus, I., Kemp, R. & Grant, J. (1986). Differences between fingers and hands in tapping ability: Dissociation between speed and regularity. Cortex, 22, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism (Vol. 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages (Vol. 40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, N., Segalowitz, N., O'Brien, I., & Yamasaki, N. (2004). Semantic priming in a first and second language: Evidence from reaction time variability and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 237–262. doi:10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00055-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1977). Formalizing subjective notions about the effect of nonrespondents in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72, 538–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmalhofer, F., & Perfetti, C. A. (Eds.). (2007). Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. V., Glopper, K. D., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & de Almeida, R. G. (2002). Conceptual representation of verbs in bilinguals: Semantic field effects and a second-language performance paradox. Brain and Language, 81, 517–531. doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2544CrossRefGoogle 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., & Frenkiel-Fishman, S. (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill: Attention shifting and second-language proficiency. Memory & Cognition, 33, 644–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in second language learning. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 371–388). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice and the differentiation of speedup from automatization effects. Applied Linguistics, 14, 369–385.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., 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. doi:10.1017/S0142716400010572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serafini, E. (2013). Cognitive and psychosocial factors in the long-term development of implicit and explicit second language knowledge in adult learners of Spanish at increasing proficiency. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2008). Aspects of attention in language. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 27–38). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Toichi, M., Suguiura, T., Murai, T., & Sengoku, A. (1997). A new method of assessing cardiac autonomic function and its comparison with spectral analysis and coefficient of variation of R-R interval. Journal of the Autonomic Nervous System, 62, 79–84. doi:10.1016/S0165-1838(96)0012-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first-and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., De Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., & Brown, S. (2007). On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, 114, 830–841. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.830CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, E., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickens (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Zhang, R. (2013). The relationship between L2 knowledge and general L2 proficiency in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland.Google Scholar