THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECOND LANGUAGE READING AND MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS by

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECOND LANGUAGE READING AND
MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS
by
Rachel Kraut
____________________________
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
GRADUATE INTERDISCIPLINARY DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND TEACHING
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2016
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation
prepared by Rachel Kraut, titled The Development of Second Language Reading and
Morphological Skills and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation
requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
_______________________________________________________________________
Date: 11/10/2015
Kenneth Forster
_______________________________________________________________________
Date: 11/10/2015
Janet Nicol
_______________________________________________________________________
Date: 11/10/2015
Thomas Bever
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s
submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and
recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
________________________________________________ Date: 11/10/2015
Dissertation Director: Kenneth Forster
________________________________________________ Date: 11/10/2015
Dissertation Director: Janet Nicol
2
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University
Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission,
provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for
permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in
part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate
College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of
scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the
author.
SIGNED: Rachel Kraut
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Kenneth Forster, Dr.
Janet Nicol, and Dr. Thomas Bever for their contributions to my training and education as
well as continuous support and feedback on my dissertation. I cannot thank Ken and
Janet enough for the countless hours I spent in their offices discussing ideas, designing
experiments, and learning how to use experimental equipment over the last four years. I
have grown so much in my scholarly abilities during my time here thanks to your
guidance and patience.
And of course, I have to thank my wonderful husband, Brandon Kraut, for coming
on this ridiculous journey with me. Your support, understanding, and partnership have
been of indescribable value to me as I worked through my PhD. You have been my rock
at times when I questioned myself and I know I couldn’t have done this without you. You
welcomed my colleagues and friends into our home for innumerable writing group and
accountability group meetings, and put up with our academic mumbo jumbo. You have
been 100% supportive of any decision that was in favor of my career choice. Thank you
so much; I love you!
4
Table of Contents
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………..…8
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………..…..10
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..11
1-Introduction and Literature Review……………………………………………………13
1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..13
1.2 What We Know about L2 Reading…………………………………………..13
1.3 Theoretical Underpinnings………………………...…………………………21
1.4 The Studies in this Dissertation………………………………...……………28
1.5 Collective Contribution to the Field…………………………………………29
References………………………………………………………..………………30
2-The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Morphological
Decomposition among English Language Learners………………………………..……38
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………..………40
2.2 Previous Literature……………………………………………………...……40
2.3 Experiment 1 – Native Speakers……………………………………………..46
2.4 Experiment 2 – Non-Native Speakers…………………………………..……49
2.5 General Discussion……………………………………………………..……55
2.6 Implications for Language Pedagogy………………………………………..57
2.7 Implications for Word Storage…………………………………………….…58
2.8 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………..59
2.9 Addendum……………………………………………………………………59
5
References ……………………………………………………………………….67
Appendix A - Primes Across Three Conditions for Word and Non-Word
Targets……………………………………………………………………………72
Appendix B – Primes Across Five Conditions for Word and Non-Word
Targets…………………………………………………………………………....78
Appendix C – Test of Morphological Awareness………………………………..81
Appendix D – Springer Copyright Permission……………………………….….83
3-Morphological Decomposition among English Language Learners: An Issue of
Form?.................................................................................................................................90
3.1 Introduction and Previous Literature…………………………………...……91
3.2 The Present Study……………………………………………………………93
3.3 Experiment 1 – Native Speakers……………………….…………………….93
3.4 Experiment 2 – Non-Native Speakers………………….…………………….97
3.5 General Discussion………………………………………………….......….100
References………………………………………………………………………102
Appendix A – Primes Across Four Conditions for Word and Non-Word
Targets………………………………………………………………………......104
4- The Development of L2 Reading Skills: A Case Study from an Eight-Week Intensive
English Program Course………………………………………………………………..107
4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..…..109
4.2 Previous Literature……………………………………………………….…109
4.3 The Present Study………………………………………………………..…112
4.4 Methods…………………………………………………..…………………113
6
4.5 Discussion……………………………………………………………..……121
4.6 Implications…………………………………………………………..……..122
References………………………………………………………………………123
Appendix A – Sample Reading Passages with Comprehension Questions….…128
Appendix B – Sample Items from the Lexical Inferencing Assessment…….…130
Appendix C – Sample Items from Form A of the Vocabulary Breadth
Assessment………………………………………………………………..…….131
Appendix D – Full Reading Attitudes Questionnaire (Form A)…………..……132
5- Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….…..135
5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………...………..135
5.2 How Do L2 Readers Process Morphologically Complex Words?................136
5.3 Is There a Connection Between Knowledge of L2 Morphology and the Ability
to Use It During Online Word Recognition?.......................................................137
5.4 How Does L2 Proficiency Module These Processes?...................................138
5.5 How Much do L2 Reading Skills Improve During a Short Period of
Immersive Study?................................................................................................139
5.6 Implications for the Field………………………………………………...…140
References…………………………………………………………...………….143
7
LIST OF TABLES
Article 1
Table 1- Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for native
speakers……………………………………………………………....…………..49
Table 2- Number of speakers in each L1 background by proficiency…...………50
Table 3- Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for non-native
speakers……………………………………..……………………………………52
Table 4 – Range of morphological awareness scores by proficiency level…..….54
Table 5 – Number of superior NNS speakers in each L1 background…………..59
Table 6 – Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for all superior
non-native speakers………….…………………………………………………..62
Table 7- Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for late superior
non-native speakers……………………………………………….……………..62
Table 8- Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for early superior
non-native speakers………………………………..……………………………..63
Article 2
Table 1- Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for native
speakers……………………………………..……………………………………96
Table 2 – Number of non-native speakers in each L1 background by proficiency
included in analysis………………………………………………………………97
Table 3- Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for non-native
speakers………………………………………………………..……………..…..99
8
Article 3
Table 1- EFLAW readability scores and total number of words for each reading
comprehension passage…………………………………………………..…….115
Table 2- Total minutes read and pre- and post-data for each subject on vocabulary
breadth, lexical inferencing, reading comprehension and reading speed
assessments………………………………………………………………..……120
Table 3- Pre- and post-data for each subject on reading attitudes questionnaire by
construct………………………………………………………………..……….121
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Article 2
Figure 1- Sequence of stimuli in adjacent (right side) and non-adjacent (left side)
visible intervenor experiments (from Forster, 2009)…………………………….92
10
ABSTRACT
Decades of research have shed light on the nature of reading in our first language.
There is substantial research about how we recognize words, the ways in which we
process sentences, and the linguistic and non-linguistic factors which may affect those
processes (e.g. Besner & Humphreys, 2009). This has led to more effective pedagogical
techniques and methodologies in the teaching of L1 reading (Kamil et al., 2011). With
the ever-increasing number of L2 English speakers in U.S. schools and universities,
research in more recent has begun to investigate reading in L2. However, this field of
inquiry is not nearly as robust as that of L1 reading. Much remains to be explored in
terms of how L2 readers process words, sentences, and comprehend what they read
(Grabe, 2012).
The studies in this dissertation add to the growing body of literature detailing the
processes of L2 reading and improvement in L2 reading skills. The first two studies will
focus on a topic that has sparked lively discussion in the field over the last 10 years or so:
the online processing of L2 morphologically complex words in visual word recognition.
Article 3 discusses the effects of a pedagogical intervention and the ways in which it may
influence the development of second language reading. Broadly, the studies in this
dissertation will address the following research questions: (1) how do L2 readers process
morphologically complex words? (2) Is there a connection between their knowledge of
written morphology and their ability to use it during word recognition? (3) What is the
11
role of L2 proficiency in these processes? (4) How does extensive reading influence the
development of L2 reading skills?
Many studies of L2 word processing have been conducted using offline methods.
Accordingly, the studies in this dissertation seek to supplement what we know about L2
morphological processing and reading skills with the use of psycholinguistic tasks,
namely, traditional masked priming, masked intervenor priming, and timed reading.
Secondly, this collection of studies is among the few to explore the relationship between
online processing and offline morphological awareness, thereby bridging the two fields of
study. Thirdly, unlike most studies of online processing, the data from this dissertation
will be discussed in terms of its implications for the teaching of L2 morphologically
complex words and L2 reading skills. Thus, this dissertation may be of interest to those
working in L2 psycholinguistics of word recognition and sentence processing as well as
ESL practitioners.
References
Besner, D., & Humphreys, G. (Eds.). (2009). Basic processes in reading: Visual word
recognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2012). Current Developments in Second Language Reading Research.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-306.
Kamil, M., Pearson, D., Moje, E. & Afflerbach, P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 4). New York: Routledge.
12
Introduction and Literature Review
1.1 Introduction
Decades of research have shed light on the nature of reading in our first language.
There is substantial research about how we recognize words, the ways in which we
process sentences, and the linguistic and non-linguistic factors which may affect those
processes (e.g. Besner & Humphreys, 2009). This has led to more effective pedagogical
techniques and methodologies in the teaching of L1 reading (Kamil et al., 2011). With
the ever-increasing number of L2 English speakers in U.S. schools and universities,
research in more recent years has begun to investigate reading in L2. However, this field
of inquiry is not nearly as robust as that of L1 reading. Much remains to be explored in
terms of how L2 readers process words, sentences, and comprehend what they read
(Grabe, 1991).
This introduction chapter will first outline what we know about L2 reading as a
psycholinguistic process and as a skill taught in the L2 classroom. Next, the theoretical
underpinnings relevant to articles 1 and 2 will be discussed followed by those for article
3. The introduction chapter will conclude with a brief introduction to the three articles
and end with collective contributions to the field of L2 reading.
1.2 What We Know about L2 Reading
As an introduction to this dissertation, review of what we currently know about
L2 reading is essential. This includes overviews of emerging themes in L2 reading
research: the importance of L2 vocabulary and morphological awareness, L1 transfer
effects, shallow-vs. rich structure building in L2 sentence processing, effects of
13
background knowledge on reading comprehension, and reading strategy use by L2
readers.
The Importance of L2 Vocabulary and Morphological Awareness
Likely one of the most studied phenomena in the field of second language reading
research is that of L2 vocabulary development and its importance for L2 reading. From
earlier work, we know that the percentage of familiar vocabulary necessary for second
language readers to understand written texts is approximately between 95% (Laufer,
1989b) and 98% of the words in a text (Hu & Nation, 2000). Thus, vocabulary
development in the L2 is crucial, as it has a significant influence on reading
comprehension. For instance, we know that unfamiliar L2 vocabulary in phrases and texts
adversely affects comprehension (e.g. Martinez & Murphy, 2011), and conversely,
significant gains in vocabulary lead to significant gains in reading comprehension (Shany
& Biemiller, 2009).
A crucial component of vocabulary knowledge, in L1 or L2, is morphological
awareness, “the ability to reflect upon and manipulate morphemes and employ word
formation rules in one’s language” (Kuo & Anderson, 2006, p. 161). Adding to this
definition, Carlisle (2000) stated that morphological awareness “must have as its basis the
ability to parse words and analyze constituent morphemes for the purpose of constructing
meaning” (p. 170). Finally, Zhang (2013) argues that “As such, morphological awareness
contributes to word reading by facilitating segmentation of morphologically complex
words and the retrieval and retention of these words; more importantly, it is also a basic
competence for word learning in that meanings of unfamiliar words can be inferred by
use of morphological analysis” (p. 918, Zhang, 2013).
14
Morphological awareness has been shown to significantly contribute to the
development of L1 and L2 literacy skills (e.g., Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nagy, Berninger,
& Abbott, 2006). Morphological awareness correlates with many abilities related to
reading and writing such as spelling (e.g. Marinova-Todd et al., 2013), reading
comprehension (e.g. Kieffer & Lessaux, 2008; 2012), word learning (e.g. Carlisle, 2000;
McBridge-Chang et al., 2008) and decomposition abilities in both children (Clahsen &
Fleischhuer, 2014) and college-aged students (Landers & Coch, 2009). Within L2
reading, offline tests of morphological awareness and lexical inferencing abilities
conducted by Zhang in 2013 with Chinese learners of English show that morphological
awareness in the L1 can have significant effects, both directly and indirectly, on
morphological awareness in the L2.
Shallow vs. Rich Structure
A newer debate in the literature is about sentence-level processing in L2 reading.
Researchers in this area are interested in such questions as “Do L2 learners compute
complex, rich structure for sentences in the way that native speakers do?” A position
paper by Clahsen & Felser (2006) introduced the shallow structure hypothesis. In an
extensive literature review of more than 100 papers, the authors discuss the findings of
studies across a wide variety of psycholinguistic techniques, morphological and syntactic
phenomena, and age ranges to answer the question of how adult L2 learners process
sentences online.
Their interpretation of the results indicates that children and mature L1 speakers
generally use the same online parsing strategies, while adult L2 learners process grammar
differently. Specifically, the authors claim that adult L2 learners rely on lexical-semantic
15
cues to process sentences in their L2 just as L1 speakers do in their native language, but
that they rely on syntactic cues significantly less than L1 speakers. They propose the
shallow structure hypothesis, which states that “the syntactic representations that adult L2
learners compute for comprehension are shallower and less detailed than those of native
speakers” (p.32). Moreover, under this hypothesis, Clahsen & Felser argue that sentence
comprehension in adult L2 learners may be “incremental in that learners try to integrate
each new incoming chunk into the emerging syntactic representation as soon as possible”
(p. 33). The authors state that their hypothesis accounts for many of the previous findings
in the literature including L1/L2 differences in ambiguity resolution (e.g. Felser &
Roberts, 2004), processing of filler-gap dependencies (e.g. Marinis et al., 2005), and is
consistent with many findings of ERP studies of L2 sentence processing (e.g. Hahne et
al., 2006).
Subsequent research has failed to find support for this hypothesis. One such study
was conducted by Witzel, Witzel & Nicol (2011). Noting that the experimental results for
the types of sentences (having ambiguous relative clause attachment) used by Clahsen,
Felser, and colleagues are not as consistent as one might think, the authors set out to
further test adult L2 learners’ abilities to process sentences with relative clause
attachment ambiguity, among others. In particular, the sentences tested by Witzel et al.
fell into one of six conditions: high relative clause attachment (e.g. The son of the actress
who shot himself on the set was under investigation.) or low relative clause attachment
(e.g. The son of the actress who shot herself on the set was under investigation.), high
adverb attachment (e.g. Jack will meet the friend he phoned tomorrow, but he doesn’t
want to.) or low adverb attachment (e.g. Jack will meet the friend he phoned yesterday,
16
but he doesn’t want to.) and unambiguous (e.g. The nurse examined the mother, and the
child played quietly in the corner.) or temporarily ambiguous (e.g. The nurse examined
the mother and the child played quietly in the corner.). According to the shallow structure
hypothesis, adult Chinese learners of English should have significantly more difficulty
processing the high attachment relative clause sentences than native speakers, should
show no adverb attachment preference (due to the supposed lack of structure-based
parsing strategies in L2 learners), and should show processing difficulty of the
temporarily ambiguous sentences.
Participants in this study were a group of native English speakers and highly
proficient Chinese L1 learners of English. An eye tracking paradigm paired with
occasional comprehension questions was used to measure processing time and accuracy.
The results show that although the attachment preference for the relative clause
ambiguities differed between native speakers and learners (NSs preferred low attachment,
NNSs preferred high attachment), both preferences are still indicative of structure-based
parsing strategies. For the sentences containing adverb ambiguities, both NSs and NNSs
showed preference for sentences with low attachment, which is, again, due to crosslinguistic structure-based parsing strategies. Finally, in the coordination ambiguity
condition, both L1 and L2 speakers exhibited interpretation preference consistent with
principles of minimal attachment. In short, L1 and L2 preferences for two out of three
ambiguous sentence types were strikingly similar and indicative of structure-based
parsing strategies. Despite a reversal in attachment preference for the relative clause
sentences, performance of the adult L2 learners is still inconsistent with what would be
predicted by the shallow structure hypothesis.
17
L1 Transfer
Encompassing both word-level and sentence-level L2 reading are the
psycholinguistic phenomena known as L1 transfer effects. L1 transfer effects have been
found for many kinds of syntactic, morpho-syntactic, and lexical structures in the L2 as
well as the transfer of reading strategies. It has been demonstrated with a variety of
experimental techniques that L2 learners are often insensitive to morpho-syntactic
structures that are present in the L2 but not required in the L1 (e.g. Jiang, 2007). Building
on this notion, subsequent work (e.g. Barto-Sisamout et al., 2009) suggests boundaries in
theories of L1-L2 transfer; namely, that transfer effects may only be present in late
learners and lower proficiency learners. Moreover, transfer effects that do emerge,
resulting in insensitivities, may not be caused by a hypersensitivity to any disagreement
between the two systems as has been previously proposed, but rather an insensitivity to
aspects of the L2 due to knowledge of the L1 (Jackson & Dussias, 2009). Even though
late learners show insensitivity to certain grammatical features, it’s not necessarily that
they don’t have these representations, but rather that they aren’t able to make use of them
during online sentence processing.
In addition to L1 influence at the level of sentence processing, mounting evidence
suggests that L2 readers may be affected by orthographic differences. “Differences
between languages with shallow and deep orthographic structure (very regular soundletter correspondences versus many irregular sound-letter correspondences) have been
discussed as a potential source of difficulty for some ESL students. Thus, students from a
Spanish language background might have word recognition problems with English,
which is less transparently phonemic” (p. 387, Grabe, 1991). Differences in writing
18
systems (e.g. logographic vs. alphabetic) between the L1 and L2 have also been shown to
play a potential role in L2 reading abilities. “Such orthographic differences across
languages may have some effect on the preferred route for lexical access (i.e. direct vs.
indirect), but evidence suggests that each language combines direct lexical access with
phonological access to words, and fluent readers in all orthographically different
languages appear to read texts equally rapidly” (p. 388, Grabe, 1991).
Effects of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension
Not surprisingly, one’s level of background knowledge of a subject has been
shown to have a significant effect on one’s ability to comprehend written texts on that
topic (e.g. Alexander et al., 1994). If schemata are already in place before approaching a
reading on a certain topic, the cognitive effort to construct new ones is not necessary, and
any sort of new information can easily be added to what is already in place. Second
language learners also experience the benefits of prior knowledge when approaching a
new text (e.g. Brantmeier, 2002; Brantmeier, 2003; Carrell, 1984a; Carrell, 1984b), but as
many of them come from other regions of the world, the cultural or background
knowledge necessary to take on some of the reading passages they are exposed to is
limited or simply not there. To help combat this, textbook publishers often include textual
adjuncts inside or alongside their reading passages, such as outlines, organizational cues
and questioning techniques (Brantmeier et al., 2014). However, recent work by
Brantmeier et al. (2011 & 2014) demonstrated that “although subject knowledge was
positively related to comprehension for both passages, the use of textual enhancements
did not compensate for lack of subject knowledge” (p. 43, 2014). Apart from textual
adjuncts, when taught the necessary background or cultural knowledge prior to reading
19
about it, studies conducted with adult ESL learners show that such interventions mediate
reading comprehension (e.g. Johnson, 1982).
Use of Reading Strategies by L2 Users
Studies of successful readers demonstrate that reading comprehension does not
occur automatically; rather, it depends on direct cognitive efforts, called metacognitive
processing which consists of knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognitive
processes (Jafari, 2012). The use of metacognitive strategies, such as predicting future
content, asking questions, summarizing what has been read so far, and clarifying
information, have been shown to have significant positive impacts on L1 reading
comprehension (e.g. Brown and Palincsar, 1984). As in L1 reading, metacognitive
reading strategies play a significant role in L2 reading comprehension as well (LarsenFreeman, 1991). Interestingly, Nergis (2013) found that for adult learners of academic
English, use of metacognitive reading strategies was found to be a better predictor of L2
academic reading comprehension than depth of vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore,
when taught to use metacognitive reading strategies, adult L2 learners not only improve
in reading comprehension, but in attitudes towards using such strategies to improve their
linguistic knowledge (Jafari, 2012). Researchers and practitioners continue to argue for
the teaching of metacognitive L2 reading strategies for other correlated reasons including
that “students who demonstrate a wide range of metacognitive skills perform better in
examinations and complete work more efficiently” (Ofodu & Adedipe, 2011) and tend to
have more positive attitudes towards reading and school in general (Hasan, 2013).
20
1.3 Theoretical Underpinnings
The research questions guiding the studies in this dissertation come out of two
central debates in L2 reading: (1) the debate in psycholinguistics over the way in which
L2 morphological words are processed and (2) the time course of L2 reading skills
development. Articles 1 and 2 address the former and article 3 explores the latter. Below,
each are briefly discussed and then tied to the research hypotheses of this dissertation in
the following section.
Single- vs. Dual-Route Processing (Articles 1 & 2)
In this theoretical debate, the first side posits a single-route mechanism of
morphological processing (e.g. McClelland & Patterson, 2002; Seidenberg &
Gonnerman, 2000). Commonly associated with connectionist models of language
processing, “associative single mechanism models claim that all word forms are stored in
an associative lexicon and that the morphological structure of inflected and derived words
plays no direct role in the way they are processed” (p. 245, Silva & Clahsen, 2008).
The foundation of evidence upon which such models are constructed come from a
fundamental disagreement with Pinker and colleagues (e.g. Pinker & Ullman, 2002) over
the mechanisms for processing the irregular past tense in English. After reviewing the
evidence from child speech, McClelland & Patterson (2002) argue that the processing of
English irregular past tense does not display the key aspects of a rule-based dualmechanism model: (1) that acquisition of a rule based system is sudden; (2) that the
application of the rules is uniform in its application despite variance in factors such as
phonological and semantic relationships; and (3) the rule-based mechanism is distinct
from the one that deals with exceptions to the rule (p. 467). Instead, they posit that the
21
acquisition of English irregular past tense is a gradual process for children, one that is
subject to phonological and semantic influences and thus is not uniform in its application,
as is assumed by dual-route models. In their connectionist model of morphological
processing, “inflectional processes arise in a single integrated system, in which graded
and context-sensitive influences of many different types jointly determine whether a
regular or an exceptional past tense (or other inflection) will apply” (p. 471). In being
sensitive to regularities, the authors state their connectionist network is capable of close
approximation to a rule-based system for inputs and outputs with a regular relationship.
On the other side of the debate are dual-route mechanisms of morphological
processing (Taft & Forster, 1975; Clahsen, 1999; Pinker and Ullman, 2002). These views
argue in favor of whole-word storage route for irregularly inflected words (e.g. kept)
which are retrieved from the lexicon during processing (p. 245, Silva & Clahsen, 2008)
and a second route involving morphological decomposition to recognize regularly
inflected and derived words (e.g. talked, celebration).
One of the most notable studies in support of dual-route mechanisms was
conducted by Rastle & New (2004). Unlike other masked priming studies of
morphological decomposition at the time, Rastle & New made use of pseudo-derived
word primes (e.g., corner-CORN), pseudo-derived non-word primes (e.g., corningCORN), and orthographic control primes (e.g. brothel-BROTH) which appeared to have
a morphological stem. Remarkably, the pseudo-derived word primes and the pseudoderived non-word primes produced significant priming effects equal to those produced by
genuinely derived word primes (e.g. banker-BANK) and greater than those in the
orthographic overlap condition. Taken together, this reaction time data is strong support
22
for the decompositional view of morphological processing. It also suggests that the
priming effects in decomposition cannot be attributed to form overlap alone, but rather to
the morphological structure of the items.
One of the only models of morphological processing within this debate that focuses
on L2 speakers is Ullman’s declarative/procedural model (2012). Ullman cites evidence
to build a case for a model of morphological processing which consists of two different
memory systems: the declarative system which is used for storage of memorized words
and phrases and the procedural system which is used for processing combinatorial rules
of language. According to Ullman, native speakers make use of both memory systems
when processing morphologically complex words. However, L2 processing is largely
dependent upon the lexical memory system because reliance on the procedural system is
less than in L1 processing. Overreliance on the declarative system in L2 processing is
attributed to maturational changes in childhood, which leads to attenuation of the
procedural and enhancement of the declarative system. “For processing morphologically
complex words, this means that L2 learners mainly rely on full-form storage, while
morphological parsing is underused or even absent in L2 processing” (Silva & Clahsen,
2008).
Many L2 masked priming studies to date provide evidence in favor of Ullman’s
declarative/procedural model. Among the first of these was Silva and Clahsen’s (2008)
study. Using a masked priming paradigm, the two researchers explored L2 morphological
processing skills of Chinese and German adult learners of English at an advanced level of
proficiency. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated the processing of L2 inflectional
morphology, using regular past tense –ed as primes in the inflected condition.
23
Experiments 3 and 4 pertained to the processing of derivational morphology, using
derivational nominalizers –ness and –ity as primes in the derived condition. The results of
these experiments revealed no significant priming effects for inflected items and “partial
priming” (priming effects weaker than those in the native speaker control group) for
derived items (p. 249). The authors conclude that, in accordance with Ullman, “L2
processing relies less on combinatorial mechanisms than L1 processing” (p. 257).
Building on the work of Silva & Clahsen, Rehak & Juffs (2011) conducted a
replication of their study with different L1 groups. Because Silva & Clahsen did not find
a significant difference between their Chinese and German learners of English in terms of
reaction times, they concluded that there may be little to no influence of the L1 in L2
morphological processing. Rehak & Juffs brought in Spanish and Chinese advanced
adults learners of L2 English to test this claim. Using the same –ness and –ity items in
their masked priming experiment, the researchers’ results showed no priming for either
derivational nominalizer, despite their difference in productivity. However, the group of
Spanish learners of L2 English produced a mean reaction time much more similar to the
control group of native English speakers than the Chinese learners of L2 English. It was
suggested that this may be so because the Spanish learners of L2 English were able to
make use of some morphological processing mechanisms used in the L1. Spanish has a
derivational nominalizer, -idad, which is quite similar to English –ity. These results
support Ullman’s model and also point toward possible L1 transfer in morphological
processing.
However, a number of other L2 morphological processing studies tout evidence of a
slightly different tone. Among such papers, Dal Maso & Giraudo (2014) is one of the
24
most recent. Very similar to the work done by Silva & Clahsen (2008) and Rehak & Juffs
(2011), the two researchers set out to explore the processing of L2 Italian nominalizers
with different levels of productivity but also different levels of surface frequency. The
nominalizers –itá and –ezza were used, with –itá being more frequent and more
productive than –ezza. L2 learners’ reaction times in the masked priming experiment
show significant priming effects for primes ending in –itá when compared with the
unrelated and orthographic control conditions. This effect was modulated by frequency of
the prime such that high frequency words showed significant priming, while lower
frequency words ending in the suffix showed a tendency toward significance. No
significant L2 priming was found for primes ending in –ezza. These results suggest that
“morphology does play a role in the processing of L2 Italian, at least for very frequent
words” (p. 9). While not in 100% disagreement with Ullman’s model, this evidence does
bring to light new factors which may be crucial in investigations of L2 morphological
processing: surface frequency effects and suffix productivity.
As discussed in the subsequent section, one of the aims of the experiments in this
dissertation is to provide evidence for or against (1) single- or dual-route models of
morphological processing and (2) Ullman’s declarative/procedural model of L2
morphological processing in hopes of adding to the growing picture of the processing of
morphologically complex words for late-learning non-native speakers.
Time Course of L2 Reading Skills Development (Article 3)
The exact time course of L2 literacy development for adult learners is highly debated,
as a large body of research has pointed towards the importance of individual differences
(see Dewaele, 2009 for review). Just to name a few, the development of L2 reading skills
25
is known to be influenced by motivation to learn the L2 (e.g. Kondo-Brown, 2006),
amount of linguistic overlap with the learner’s L1 (Jared, 2015), level of literacy
development in the L1 (e.g. Sparks et al., 2012), working memory (e.g. Jeon &
Yamashita, 2014), L2 vocabulary growth (e.g.Verhoeven et al., 2011), amount of reading
practice (e.g. Nakanishi, 2015) and even general statistical-learning abilities that are nonlinguistic in nature (Frost et al., 2013).
However, whether for empirical or political reasons, there seems to be a common
assumption among universities and intensive English programs that 7-16 weeks is enough
time for a language learner to progress to the next level of proficiency. This is reflected in
the widespread practice of semester-long foreign language courses at the university level
with many offering “accelerated” options of course completion in just 7 or 8 weeks.
Similarly, intensive English programs typically run 7, 8, or 16 week courses for ESL
students. By completing a course with a passing grade in either type of program, a
student is deemed to have met the minimum requirements to progress to the next band of
proficiency, as usually defined by a standardized proficiency scale such as the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) or the American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines.
When one takes into account the research on L2 literacy development, it is not
surprising that evidence has come to light showing that these typical university foreign
language course lengths is not enough time for a language learner to truly advance to the
next stage of proficiency without complete immersion in the target language (Elder &
Loughlin, 2003; Jochum, 2014). It is true that L2 linguistic abilities may improve, but
often not to the point of testing at the next level of proficiency on the CEFR or ACTFL
26
scales. In fact, a report by the Center for Applied Second Language Studies at the
University of Oregon (2010) shows that approximately 700 hours are needed for 50% of
students to reach the 3rd ACTFL level of proficiency, which is only Novice High. In order
to fit such a high number of total hours into a student’s program, multiple years of
language instruction would be necessary to reach this basic level of proficiency when
starting from zero knowledge of the target language. Furthermore, data included in this
report showed that students enrolled in semester-long foreign language courses versus
year-long language courses tested at lower levels of language proficiency, despite having
the same total number of instructional hours.
Fewer studies have been conducted with students in intensive English programs.
Among those that exist is an unpublished study (White, 2014) showing that at the end of
an academic year, 68% percent of students did not meet the proficiency requirements, as
evidenced by iTEP proficiency scores, for the courses they were advancing to in the next
session. In such cases, advancement can commonly be due to grade inflation (e.g.
Rojstaczer & Healy, 2010), or possibly the structure of the program (i.e. 8 week courses).
A second study by Elder & Loughlin (2003) demonstrated that even with a longer 10-12
week period of intensive English language study, the average improvement across their
112 subjects was half a proficiency band, as defined by the International English
Language Test System (IELTS) proficiency bands.
Taken together, this evidence begs the question of exactly how much linguistic
development takes places in a typical term, and what factors may influence this. As the
first 2 studies in this dissertation pertain to adult English learners enrolled in an intensive
English program, the third study will be conducted with the same population. Further,
27
this third study conforms to the theme of word processing and word recognition in that it
will investigate the development of L2 reading skills over the course of 1 session in an
intensive English program. In this way, it will add to the small body of literature on the
time course of L2 skills development in intensive English programs. This is further
discussed in the following section.
1.4 The Studies in this Dissertation
The aim of the collection of studies in this dissertation is to add to the growing
body of literature detailing the processes of L2 reading and improvement in L2 reading
skills. More specifically, two of the three studies will focus on a topic that has sparked
lively discussion in the field over the last 10 years or so: the online processing of L2
morphologically complex words. Additionally, the effects of a pedagogical intervention
and the ways in which it may influence the development of second language reading
skills will be discussed in article three. Broadly, the studies in this dissertation will
address the following research questions:
Articles 1 & 2
(1) How do L2 readers process morphologically complex words? Do they
decompose morphologically complex words into their constituents (e.g.
CELEBRATION  celebrate & -tion) for recognition or process them in whole
form?
(2) Is there a connection between their knowledge of morphology (e.g. as
demonstrated by a paper and pencil test of morphological awareness) and their
ability to use it during online word recognition?
(3) How does L2 proficiency modulate these processes?
28
Article 3
(4) How much do L2 reading skills improve during a short period of immersive
study?
1.5 Collective Contribution to the Field
As many studies of L2 word processing have been conducted using offline
methods, the studies in this dissertation seek to supplement what we know about L2
morphological processing and reading skills with the use of online psycholinguistic tasks,
namely, traditional masked priming, masked intervenor priming, and timed reading.
Secondly, this collection of studies will be among the few to explore the relationship
between online processing and offline morphological awareness, thereby attempting to
bridge the two fields of study. Thirdly, unlike most studies of online processing, the data
from this dissertation will be discussed in terms of its implications for the teaching of L2
morphologically complex words and L2 reading skills. Thus, this dissertation may be of
interest to those working in L2 psycholinguistics of word recognition and sentence
processing as well as ESL practitioners.
Moreover, the first two studies will provide evidence for or against morphological
decomposition by non-native speakers. In addition, differences between inflected vs.
derived morphologically complex words will be elicited and examined as well. In masked
morphological priming experiments such as those proposed in the first study, L1 speakers
usually show significant morphological priming effects; this is interpreted in the field as
evidence of morphological decomposition. If L2 speakers do not show priming effects in
the masked priming experiments, we can conclude that decomposition is likely not
occurring. This would provide evidence in support of Ullman’s declarative/procedural
29
model. Exploring possible differences in morphological priming effects between inflected
and derived words will turn up data in favor of either single- or dual-route processing
models of morphologically complex words. If priming effects are similar across
morphology type, the single-route models would be supported, but if priming effects
differ, this lends itself to support dual-route models of morphological processing.
Lastly, article three will shed light on the nature of L2 reading skill development
within the common eight-week course structure of most intensive English programs. As
aforementioned, extensive reading has been shown to have many positive effects on L2
reading skill development, but just how much of this happens within one intensive
English program session is yet to be defined. The results of the latter part of this
dissertation will have possible implications for the way in which extensive reading
programs and reading courses are structured in intensive English programs. If subjects in
this study do not show significant improvement in reading skills over the course of their
eight-week reading course, this may suggest that reading classes should be lengthier and
encourage more extensive reading to allow students more time to develop before being
promoted to the next proficiency level.
References
Alexander, P., Kulikowich, J. & Schulze, S. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge,
domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition.
Learning and Individual Differences, 6(4), p. 379-397.
Barto-Sisamout, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J. & Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer effects in bilingual
sentence processing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 16, 1-26.
30
Besner, D., & Humphreys, G. (Eds.). (2009). Basic processes in reading: Visual word
recognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brantmeier, C. (2002). The effects of passage content on second language reading
comprehension by gender across instruction levels. In J. Hammadou Sullivan
(Ed.), Research in second language learning: Literacy and the second language
learner (pp. 149–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage content and
comprehension in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15,
1–27.
Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., & McDaniel, M. (2011). The effects of embedded and
elaborative interrogation questions on reading comprehension with advanced
second language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 238–247.
Brantmeier, C., Sullivan, J. & Strube, M. (2014). Toward independent L2 readers: Effects
of text adjuncts, subject knowledge, L1 reading, and L2 proficiency. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 26(2), p. 34-53.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A
natural history of one program for enhancing learning. (Technical Report No.
334), Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically
complex words:Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190.
Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 18, 441–469. doi: 10.2307/3586714.
31
Carrell, P. L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schemata in second language
comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87–112. doi: 10.1111/j.14671770.1984.tb01005.x.
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of
German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H. & E. Fleischhauer 2014. Morphological priming in child German. Journal of
Child Language 41: 1305-1333.
Deacon, S. H., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. B. (2007). Crossover: The role of
morphological awareness in French immersion children’s reading. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 732–746.
Del Maso, S. & Giraudo, H. (2014). Morphological processing in L2 Italian: Evidence
from a masked priming study. Lingvisticae Investigationes: Morphology and its
interfaces Syntax, semantics and the lexicon, 37 (2), p.1-16.
Dewaele, J. M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 623–646). Bingley, England: Emerald Insight.
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2004). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second
language sentence processing. Poster presented at AMLaP, Aix-en-Provence,
September 2004.
32
Frost, R., Siegelman, N., Narkiss, A. & Afek, L. (2013). What Predicts Successful
Literacy Acquisition in a Second Language? Psychological Science, 24(7), p.
1243-1252.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current Developments in Second Language Reading Research.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-306.
Hahne, A., M¨uller, J., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological processing in a second
language: Behavioral and ERP evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18.
Hasan, K. (2013). Impacts of reading metacognitive strategies and reading attitudes on
school success. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), p.312-317.
Hu, H. M. & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading
comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, p. 403-429.
Jackson, C. & Dussias, P. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2
sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), p. 65-82.
Jafari, D. (2012). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension enhancement in
Iranian intermediate EFL setting. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), p.114.
Jared, D. (2015). Literacy and Literacy Development in Bilinguals. In A. Pollatsek & R.
Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 165-185). London,
England: Oxford Psychology.
Jeon, E. & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A metaanalysis. Language Learning, 64(1), p. 160-212.
33
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language
learning. Language Learning, 57 (1), p. 1-33.
Jochum, C. (2014). Measuring the effects of a semester abroad on students’ oral
proficiency gains: A comparison of at-home and study abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 24, p. 93-104.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on Reading Comprehension of Building Background
Knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), p. 503-516.
Kamil, M., Pearson, D., Moje, E. & Afflerbach, P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 4). New York: Routledge.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphological awareness
in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 783–804.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012c). Direct and indirect roles of morphological
awareness in the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish,
Filipino, and Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), p. 1170-1204.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Affective variables and Japanese L2 reading ability. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 18(1), p. 55-71.
Kuo, L.-J.,&Anderson, R. C. (2006).Morphological awareness and learning to read: A
cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.
Landers, A., & Coch, D. (2009). Behavioral expression of morphological processing and
its relation to reading. Poster presented at the 2009 Psychological and Brain
Sciences Honors Poster Symposium, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New
Hampshire, USA.
34
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. A. (1991). An introduction to second language
acquisition research. New York: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1989b).What percentage of lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren
& M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking
machines (pp. 316-323).London, England: Multilingual Matters.
Longtin, M-C., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word
processing, Journal of Memory and Language, 53:1, 26-41.
Marinis, T.,Roberts, L., Felser,C.,& Clahsen, H. (2005).Gaps in second language
sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.
Marinova-Todd, S., Siegel, L. & Mazabel, S. (2013). The Association Between
Morphological Awareness and Literacy in English Language Learners From
Different Language Backgrounds. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1), 93-107.
Martinez, R. & Murphy, V. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second
language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), p. 267-290.
McBride-Chang, C., Tardif, T., Cho, J.-R., Shu, H., Fletcher, P., Stokers, S. F., et al.
(2008). What’s in a word? Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge
in three languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 437–462.
McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections:
What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465–472.
Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond
phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.
35
Nakanishi, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of extensive reading research. TESOL Quarterly,
49(1), p. 6-37.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, p. 1-9.
Odofu, G. & Adedipe, T. (2011). Assessing ESL students' awareness and application of
metacognitive strategies in comprehending academic materials. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(5), p. 343-346.
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456–463.
Rastle,K., Davis, M.H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in mybrother’s brothel:
morphoorthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review 11, 1090–1098.
Rehak, K.M. & Juffs, A. (2011). Native and non-native processing of morphologically
complex English words: Testing the influence of derivational prefixes. In G.
Granena et al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2010 Second Language
Research Forum, (pp. 125-142). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Seidenberg, M. S. & Gonnerman, L. M (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as
the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.
Shany, M. & Biemiller, A. (2009). Individual differences in reading comprehension gains
from assisted reading practice: Pre-existing conditions, vocabulary acquisition,
and amounts of practice. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23,
p. 1071-1083.
36
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2
processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 11 (2), p.245-260.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L. & Humbach, N. (2012). Relationships among L1
print exposure and early L1 literacy skills, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(7), p. 1599-1634.
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647.
The University of Oregon. (2010). What factors are important for an effective K-8
program? Eugene, Oregon: Center for Applied Second Language Studies.
Ullman, M. T. (2012). The declarative/procedural model. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 160-164).
Verhoeven, L., Leeuwe, J. & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading
development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading,
15(1), p. 8-25.
White, E. (2014, August 13). CESL Placement Test Data. Lecture presented at CESL
Faculty In-Service 2014 in University of Arizona, Tucson.
Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (2011). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structurebased parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 1-38.
Zhang, D. (2013). Linguistic distance effect on cross-linguistic transfer of morphological
awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, p. 917-942.
37
The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Morphological
Decomposition among English Language Learners
Article originally published: Springer and Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, volume 28, 2015, p. 873-890, The relationship between morphological
awareness and morphological decomposition among English language learners, Kraut.
ABSTRACT
Morphological awareness facilitates many reading processes. For this reason, L1
and L2 learners of English are often directly taught to use their knowledge of English
morphology as a useful reading strategy for determining parts of speech and meaning of
novel words. Over time, use of morphological awareness skills while reading develops
into an automatic process for L1 readers called morphological decomposition. While the
practice of explicitly teaching morphological awareness skills is prevalent in ESL classes,
more research is needed to establish what is known about gains in L2 morphological
awareness, and its relationship to the development of automatic morphological
decomposition processes in English language learners.
The present study seeks to shed light on the nature of this relationship across
growth in L2 proficiency. Two experimental measures were used: a masked priming
paradigm with a lexical decision task to explore priming evidence for morphological
decomposition and a paper and pencil test of morphological awareness which required
subjects to derive the base of a morphologically complex word. These tasks were
administered to L1 (N=43) and L2 groups (intermediate N =16, advanced N = 16) of
university-aged subjects. Results indicated that all subjects show repetition priming
effects. However, despite a significant gain in explicit knowledge of English morphology
38
across proficiency levels, L2 learners don’t develop an ability to morphologically
decompose words in the unconscious, automatic way that native English speakers do, as
evidenced by a lack of morphological priming. Implications for L2 pedagogy and L2
word storage in the mental lexicon are discussed.
Keywords: morphological awareness, morphological decomposition, English learners,
reading
39
2.1 Introduction
Morphological awareness facilitates word recognition, reading comprehension, and
learning new words (Goodwin et al., 2013; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2008; Marinova-Todd et
al., 2013). For this reason, L1 and L2 learners of English are often directly taught to use
their knowledge of English morphology as a useful reading strategy for determining parts
of speech and meaning of novel words. There is substantial evidence (e.g. Murrell &
Morton, 1974; Kempley & Morton, 1982; Taft, 1979; Taft & Forster, 1975) that over
time, this strategy develops into an unconscious and automatic process for L1 readers
called morphological decomposition, which can be defined as the resolution of a word
into its individual morphemes (i.e. stems, prefixes and suffixes). Once this has been done,
a word is thereby recognized by its root form (Taft, 2004).
While the practice of explicitly teaching morphological awareness skills is prevalent
in ESL classes, more research is needed to establish what is known about gains in L2
morphological awareness, and its relationship to the development of automatic
morphological decomposition processes in English language learners. With a look into
the existing literature, we review what is currently known about morphological awareness
and decomposition skills in L2 learners to situate the current study.
2.2 Previous Literature
L2 Morphological Awareness
As aforementioned, morphological awareness is crucial for many different reading
skills in both L1 and L2. For instance, Kieffer & Lesaux (2008) longitudinally examined
the relationship between morphological awareness and Spanish-speaking English
40
learners’ reading comprehension in English. By following and testing the same group of
students through fourth and fifth grade, Kieffer & Lesaux were able to show that
morphological awareness and reading comprehension increase over time. Moreover, the
use of an extract-the-base-task (much like the one used in the present study) and a
reading comprehension passage indicated that morphological awareness of derived forms
in English was a significant predictor of reading comprehension once the students entered
fifth grade.
Similar results were obtained in 2012 by the same authors with sixth grade students
from Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese backgrounds. A battery of assessments to
analyze morphological awareness, global and inferential reading comprehension skills,
reading vocabulary and silent reading fluency revealed that morphological awareness is
crucial for reading vocabulary, which in turn is important for reading comprehension
across language groups. Additionally, when effects of reading vocabulary and word
reading efficiency were controlled, Kieffer & Lesaux found a significant direct
contribution of morphological awareness to reading comprehension among the L2
English learners. Lastly, the results of this study indicate that morphological awareness
significantly predicts word reading efficiency as well.
Marinova-Todd and colleagues (2013) expand what is known about L2
morphological awareness by conducting a study with sixth grade students from a myriad
of language backgrounds including 7 Germanic languages, 2 Chinese languages, 2
Filipino languages, 3 Romance languages, 7 Slavic languages, as well as Korean and
Persian. Through such a diverse subject pool, the researchers were able to investigate
possible effects of L1 transfer in morphological awareness and the way in which this
41
manifests itself in reading comprehension and spelling in L2 English. A series of multiple
regression analyses show that across L1 backgrounds (excluding the Slavic languages),
“morphological awareness made an independent contribution to reading comprehension
and spelling tasks over and beyond that of phonological awareness skills” (p.102). While
significant contributions were found in all language groups, effects of morphological
awareness on reading comprehension were strongest among students from L1
backgrounds with more transparent or agglutinative morphology, such as Korean,
Filipino and Persian, thus indicating a possible role of L1 transfer in morphological
awareness.
L2 Morphological Knowledge and Automaticity
While findings from the literature about the importance of morphological awareness
in offline L2 reading tasks are largely consistent, those investigating the online use of
such knowledge vary substantially. Some studies report evidence for automatic
morphological decomposition among L2 learners in online word processing, but others
argue otherwise. A number of these studies are discussed below.
Jiang (2004) conducted a study with a group of Chinese L2 learners of English to
investigate whether or not cases of morphological difficulty among L2 speakers are due
to issues of competence or performance. Three online, self-paced reading experiments
were implemented to explore this question. Participant reading times were measured,
with longer reading times indicating processing difficulties likely due to morphological
disagreement. In the first experiment, inflectional plural morphemes were manipulated
to either agree (e.g. The key to the cabinet was rusty from many years of disuse.) or
disagree (e.g. The key to the cabinets was rusty from many years of disuse.) with a
42
corresponding verb. The second and third experiments used a similar procedure, but
manipulated subject-verb agreement with the head noun of the sentence and subject
agreement in number and subcategorization (e.g. The bridges to the island were about
ten miles away vs. *The bridge to the island were about ten miles away.). Results of
these three experiments show that L2 learners of English’s reading times were not
affected by number disagreement. However, they are sensitive to disagreement in
subcategorization structure. Jiang stated that this implies that L2 learners’ morphological
knowledge of English “is not an integrated part of their automatic second language
competence.”
Using the same materials and procedure in 2011, Jiang et al. explore the idea of L1
transfer in online use of L2 morphological awareness with advanced groups of Russian
and Japanese L2 English learners. In Russian, plurals are morphemically marked while
in Japanese, plural marking is “highly optional or restricted” (p. 942). An analysis of
participant reading times revealed that Russian speakers showed sensitivity to
grammatical errors with the plural morpheme while Japanese speakers did not. Thus, the
data show support for the morphological congruency hypothesis, or the idea of positive
L1 transfer in online L2 morphological processing.
Yielding slightly different results, Silva & Clahsen (2008) explored the question of
whether or not differences in morphological decomposition abilities among Chinese,
German and Japanese L2 learners of English exist between inflected and derived word
forms. Firstly, Silva & Clahsen conducted a masked priming experiment with native
speakers to replicate the results of others showing that native speakers show evidence
for morphological decomposition of both inflected and derived word forms during the
43
early stages of recognition. Following the first experiment was a series of three more
masked priming experiments with the aforementioned L2 speakers as participants.
Experiment items were constructed to test for evidence of morphological decomposition
in regular past tense verbs (inflectional morphemes) and nominalizing suffixes –ness
and –ity (derivational morphemes). The data produced by these experiments
demonstrate that repetition priming effects can be seen across items for both L1 and L2
speakers of English, but that L2 speakers only show “reducing priming” for derived
items and no priming for inflected items.
Gor & Jackson (2013) sought to shed light on the roles of verb frequency and
regularity in morphological decomposition among 3 proficiency levels of advanced
English learners of Russian. Using a masked priming paradigm, the researchers’ results
suggest that advanced English learners of Russian show priming effects for regularly
inflected Russian –aj- class verbs (e.g. rabot – aj –, work). However, priming effects for
semi-regular –i- class verbs (e.g. xod-i-, go) and irregular –ø- class verbs (e.g. moj-ø-,
wash) were only observed among the 2 highest proficiency levels (advanced high and
superior on the ACTFL scale) for the former and only the highest proficiency level for
the latter. These results suggest that morphological decomposition for inflected verbs in
Russian, a highly inflectional language, is a skill that L2 learners acquire over time.
With slightly mixed results in L2 online use of morphological knowledge, one may
ask the question of what determines whether or not L2 readers of English, a
morphologically impoverished language, develop the ability over time to automatically
decompose words during word recognition as native speakers do. The majority of studies
investigating online morphological decomposition abilities among non-native speakers,
44
including the aforementioned, shed light on the processing of L2 inflectional
morphology, while studies of offline morphological awareness mostly focus on
derivational morphology. Moreover, investigations of offline morphological knowledge
have largely been conducted with children, while online experiments have mostly been
done with adults. In an attempt to more directly investigate the relationship between
offline morphological awareness and online morphological decomposition as well as add
to the small number of online studies focusing on derivational morphology, the current
study utilizes only derived forms and will use the same group of adult L2 learners in one
offline and one online experiment.
The following experiments set out to investigate these research questions:
1. Do L2 learners of English morphologically decompose words into their
morphological constituents in the automatic way that native speakers do?
2. Is there significant development in this skill over time as proficiency increases?
3. Do increases in L2 morphological awareness over time correspond with increases
in automatic morphological decomposition skills?
The researchers aim to answer these questions by first, using a masked priming paradigm
to test a group of native English speakers, who will serve as a baseline and confirm the
results of prior studies. Second, it will add to the existing knowledge of morphological
decomposition and L2 speakers by testing two groups of L2 English learners at
intermediate and advanced proficiency levels. To explore the relationship between L2
morphological awareness and decomposition abilities, the results of a morphological
awareness test will be discussed as well.
45
2.3 Experiment 1 – Native Speakers
Method
Participants To investigate this research question, a total of 43 native Englishspeaking undergraduate students from the University of Arizona participated in this
experiment (mean age = 20; age range = 18-24). They received credit for an introductory
psychology class at the university. Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Materials and Design Target words consisted of 60 words and 60 non-words ranging
from 3-8 letters in length (mean length = 5.1 letters). The word targets selected for the
study needed to be moderately frequent to ensure that the non-native participants in the
intermediate proficiency group would not be presented with words unfamiliar to them.
For this reason, the average CELEX frequency value of word targets was 54.1. Non-word
targets were created by changing 2 letters of each word target. For each target, three
primes were used (a) morphologically derived or inflected versions of the target (e.g.
winner-WIN); (b) repetition primes and (c) unrelated word primes. Rather than having
only morphological and control prime conditions, the repetition prime condition was
included to show that in the case of no morphological priming, priming effects of some
kind could still be achieved. Evidence for priming in the repetition condition and not the
morphological condition would show that the effect is indeed not present and that this
was not due to some issue with the items themselves. The full set of primes and targets
can be found in the Appendix A.
Three sets of prime-target lists (files A, B, and C) each consisting of 3 blocks with 20
targets each for a total of 60 targets were used in the experiment. Targets remained the
46
same on all three lists while items in the three prime conditions were counterbalanced. In
other words, each target appeared once in every list across subjects, but in one of the
three prime conditions. In the native speaker group, 15 participants were tested on file A,
14 on file B and 14 on file C.
Procedure The experiment items were presented as black letters on a white
background (Courier New12 pt font. Each trial the participants saw consisted of three
stimuli: (1) a row of hash marks (####) displayed for 500 ms; (2) the prime in lowercase
letters displayed for 50 ms; and (3) the target in uppercase letters displayed for 500 ms.
The experiment was run on a Pentium PC using K. Forster & J. Forster’s DMASTR
DMDX software program using a color monitor with a refresh cycle of 10 ms. This
program synchronizes timing of the display with the video raster of the computer on
which it runs. The participants’ task was to make a lexical decision on the string of
uppercase letters in each trial. If the string of letters was a word in English, they were to
answer ‘yes,’ and if the string of letters was not a word in English, they were to answer
‘no.’ All participants were instructed to make answers as quickly as possible but not so
quickly that they would make mistakes. After each trial, a feedback message reading
whether or not the response was correct in addition to their reaction time. Participants
selected their ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers through the use of two response keys. They were able
to move through the trials of the experiment at their own pace by using a foot pedal to
advance to the next trial. The items were presented in a different order for each
participant.
Results Before data analysis, participants with final error rates of 21% or higher
were excluded from the analysis as a standard procedure. However, in this experiment, no
47
participants had an error rate of 21% or higher. The data were analyzed using linear
mixed-effects modeling in R (Baayen, 2008; Baayen, Davidson, & Bates, 2008). This
was done as opposed to using the traditional method of analysis using F1 and F2 in bysubjects and by-items ANOVAs because linear mixed-effects modeling allows for the
analysis of subjects, items, and reaction times, without aggregating over subjects or
items. The data from any trials which included an error were excluded from the analysis.
Next, reaction times were transformed using a reciprocal transformation to correct for the
violation of normal distribution (i.e. the positive skew in the data) before a model was fit
to the data. In this experiment, priming was both a within-subjects and fixed effect factor.
Subjects and items were analyzed as random effect factors.
The simplest model including fixed effect factors and random factor intercepts for
subjects and items was applied to the data in this analysis. Next, an additional more
complex model was also applied to the data including random slopes for both subjects
and items. To evaluate whether or not the data justified the use of random slopes, a
likelihood ratio test was conducted. These random slopes analyses are only be reported if
they significantly improved the fit of the model (in fact, none did), and altered the
conclusions. The probability of the resulting t value was estimated for models without
random slopes using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure (MCMC) using 10,000
iterations.
The mean RTs for each condition of the word target trials are shown in Table 1.
The mixed-effects model analysis revealed significant priming effects in the
morphological prime condition (t = 7.13, p < .001) and the repetition prime condition (t =
8.74, p < .001).
48
Control prime
Morphological prime
Repetition prime
496 ms
469 ms
462 ms
Table 1. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for native speakers
Discussion The significant priming effects found in the morphological priming
condition show that native English speakers decompose words into their morphological
constituents during the early stages of word recognition. For example, one prime-target
pair in this condition was contract-CONTRACTOR. The reaction times suggest that to
recognize CONTRACTOR, native English speakers break this word into its root,
CONTRACT, and its suffix, -OR. This process of morphological decomposition allows
for more efficient lexical storage among native speakers because CONTRACT and
CONTRACTOR are not necessarily stored as two separate lexical items. These results
are in accordance with other research which has also reported evidence for morphological
decomposition by native speakers (e.g. Feldman et al., 2009; Rastle et al., 2004; Silva &
Clahsen, 2008; Stanners et al., 1979).
2.4 Experiment 2 – Non-Native Speakers
Method
Participants 32 non-native English-speaking students studying at a nearby intensive
English program in the United States participated in this experiment (mean age = 21; age
range = 18-32). Half of the non-native English speakers were enrolled in advanced
proficiency English courses (identified as B2 level speakers on the Common European
49
Framework Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale) in their intensive English program
(N=16) and the other half were enrolled in intermediate proficiency courses (identified as
A2 level speakers on the CEFR scale) (N=16). Placement in these proficiency levels is
determined either one of two ways: (1) direct placement into the level by means of an
entry test in general English abilities (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) at the
start of a student’s first semester in the program or (2) by passing all of their English
courses with a grade of 70 or above and progressing to the next proficiency level courses.
In the former case, the intensive English program (IEP) administrators determine the
proficiency level through a grading process involving multiple IEP faculty and preconstructed rubrics for evaluation. Subjects in the intermediate proficiency group had
studied English for an average of 3 years and 9 months while those in the advanced
proficiency group had studied English for an average of 6 years and 8 months. Within
each group, four different L1 backgrounds were represented: Chinese, Portuguese,
Arabic, and Spanish. Table 2 contains the number of speakers for each L1 by proficiency
level. For their participation in the masked priming as well as the test of morphological
awareness, all non-native subjects were entered into a raffle to win one of six $50 cash
prizes.
Proficiency
Chinese
Spanish
Portuguese
Arabic
Intermediate
4
1
7
4
Advanced
4
1
3
8
Table 2. Number of speakers in each L1 background by proficiency
50
Materials and Design The same items used to test the native English speakers were
also used to test the non-native speakers. This consistency allowed the researchers to use
the results from the native English speakers as a true baseline for comparison. Likewise,
the same three sets of prime-target lists (files A, B, and C) each consisting of 3 blocks
with 20 targets each for a total of 60 targets were used in this experiment. Targets
remained the same on all three lists while items in the three prime conditions were
counterbalanced. In the non-native speaker group, 6 from the advanced proficiency level
and 6 from the intermediate proficiency level were tested on file A, 4 from the
intermediate and 4 from the advanced proficiency groups were tested on file B, and 4
from the advanced proficiency level and 5 from the intermediate proficiency level were
tested on file C. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included
in the study.
Procedure The same procedure in experiment 1 was used for the non-native speaker
experiment.
Results Like the native speaker data, reaction times were transformed using a
reciprocal transformation to correct for the skewed distribution before a model was fit to
the data. Priming was both a within-subjects and fixed effect factor. Subjects and items
were analyzed as random effects. The non-native speaker data were analyzed using linear
mixed-effects modeling in R However, rather than using a 21% cutoff rate for errors, the
researchers felt justified in using a 31% error rate cutoff for the non-native speakers as
they would be more likely to make errors than the native speaker group. The data from 2
non-native speakers in the intermediate proficiency group as well as 2 in the advanced
group were rejected due to final error rates of 31% or greater.
51
As in the analysis of the native speaker data, the simplest model including fixed
effect factors and random factor intercepts for subjects and items was applied to the nonnative speaker data in the analysis. Random slopes were not used as analysis did not
justify the use of such a model. The mean RTs for each condition of the word target trials
are shown in Table 3. The mixed-effects model analysis revealed that the repetition
priming condition was significant across proficiency levels (t = 2.57, p <.01), but the
morphological prime condition was not (t = 0.16). Moreover, the model analysis showed
that there was no significant difference in reaction times between proficiency levels (t =
1.62). At first glance, the table of mean reaction times below would appear to be out of
line with this result. However, a closer look into the mean reaction times under each
condition of the individual participants in each proficiency level revealed that the near 50
ms difference in mean reaction time across proficiency levels came from approximately
three subjects in the advanced proficiency group who had exceptionally longer RTs than
the rest of the participants in that group.
Prime condition
Intermediate proficiency
Advanced proficiency
Control condition
611 ms
662 ms
Morphological condition
596 ms
668 ms
Repetition condition
586 ms
621 ms
Table 3. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for non-native speakers
Discussion The data show that while priming effects were present in the repetition
condition for both intermediate and advanced proficiency participants, they were not
present in the morphological condition. This would suggest that like native speakers, the
use of a repetition prime increases the probability that the target will be accessed for L2
52
speakers. However, the analysis shows that unlike native speakers of English,
morphological decomposition is not a part of the early stages of word recognition for
both intermediate and advanced proficiency L2 speakers. These results are in agreement
with others who have reported evidence of repetition effects for L2 speakers (e.g. Silva &
Clahsen, 2008) and those who have reported no evidence for morphological
decomposition among L2 speakers of English (e.g. Jiang, 2004).
Morphological Awareness Test
Participants The same 32 non-native speakers who participated in the masked
priming experiment took the paper and pencil test of morphological awareness.
Materials and Design The test of morphological awareness was developed using
the format and items of the Derived Forms and Base Forms tests from Carlisle (1988) and
is similar to those used in Carlisle (2000) and Kieffer & Lesaux (2008). Half of the items
tested the participants’ ability to produce the correct derived form of a given base word to
complete a sentence (e.g. My sister is an excellent _____________________(swim)).
The other half of items tested participants’ ability to produce the correct base form of a
given derived form (e.g. Americans across the _______________(national) will vote in
the election next year). These particular items were chosen because the words selected by
Carlisle (1988) control for four different types of changes in morphological derivations:
no change (in either spelling or phonology) (e.g. enjoy  enjoyment), orthographic
change (e.g. rely  reliable), phonological change (e.g. heal  health), and both
orthographic and phonological change (e.g. deep  depth). Carlisle showed that the
complexity of such spelling and phonological changes interact with participants’ abilities
to correctly produce the target form. Moreover, the words used were frequent enough that
53
they would be known and easily recognized by participants in the intermediate
proficiency group. A few questions soliciting biographical information were added to the
beginning of the test to ascertain how long the subjects had studied English. See
Appendix B for the complete test of morphological awareness.
Procedure Immediately after completing the masked priming lexical decision
task, non-native participants were administered the morphological awareness test. The
test was given after the masked priming experiment to avoid any possible instances of
unwanted priming.
Results The test of morphological awareness was found to be reliable (α= .73).
Tests were scored as a percentage out of 16 possible correct answers. The mean score for
the intermediate proficiency group was 68% while the advanced group achieved a mean
score of 88%. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that the increase in scores on the
morphological awareness test between intermediate and advanced proficiency groups was
statistically significant (F(1,15)=21.402, p <.05). The range of scores for the non-native
participants can be found below in Table 4. No significant difference in scores on the
morphological awareness test was found between different L1s within the low
proficiency level or in the high proficiency level (p >.05).
Intermediate Proficiency
Advanced Proficiency
37% - 93%
56%-100%
Table 4. Range of morphological awareness scores by proficiency level
54
Discussion The significant difference in scores on the morphological awareness
test between proficiency levels demonstrates that the ability to make explicit use of
morphological knowledge in English improves over time with practice. These findings
are in line those previously discussed by Kieffer & Lesaux (2008).
2.5 General Discussion
The results of this study suggest that while L2 speakers of English improve in
explicit morphological awareness from intermediate to advanced proficiency levels
(identified as levels A2 and B2, respectively, on the CEFR scale), neither group is able to
morphologically decompose words into their roots and affixes during the early stages of
word recognition as native speakers of English do. According to the CEFR, there is a
difference of approximately 220-400 practice hours required for mastery between
speakers at level A2 and B2 (Council of Europe, 2001). In this particular group, a
difference of 2 years and 11 months studying English was noted between the intermediate
and advanced groups. These data show that learners progressing through these levels of
English proficiency are not acquiring morphological decomposition as an automatic skill
in word recognition even after some 200+ hours or a few years of additional practice
time.
The results of this study differ from those previously discussed of Gor & Jackson
(2013) who reported evidence in favor of morphological decomposition among English
learners of Russian. However, primes included in the morphological condition favoring
morphological decomposition for this study were inflected rather than derived. Moreover,
the participants in their study were identified as either being advanced, advanced high, or
superior on the ACTFL scale, approximately equating to B2, B2+ and C1 on the CEFR
55
scale (Goldfield, 2010). This potentially suggests that over time and gains in proficiency,
English learners of Russian at a rather advanced proficiency level may gradually acquire
the ability to decompose inflected words in Russian, but not derived words. Because
Russian is much more morphologically rich than English, this discrepancy in results
could also imply potential differences in morphological decomposition abilities among
language learners depending on both the L1 and the target language.
Like Silva & Clahsen (2008), effects of repetition priming were found among L2
learners of English in the current study. They also report no evidence for morphological
priming in an inflectional condition among advanced L2 learners, but report “reduced” or
“partial” priming for derivational forms. However, further examination of the paper
reveals that reduced priming in derivational conditions was not found for regular past
tense forms, but was only found when derivational primes ended with –ness or –ity. Out
of all 60 primes in the morphological condition in the current study, only three had the –
ness suffix and one had the –ity suffix. In English, -ness is thought of as a productive and
transparent affix while –ity is seen as less productive and less transparent (Silva &
Clahsen, 2008). The current study used a variety of derivational affixes so as to
investigate the morphological decomposition abilities of L2 English speakers across a
broader spectrum. This could point to a possible effect of affix productivity and
transparency in morphological decomposition. Lastly, Silva & Clahsen’s participants
came from three L1 backgrounds: German, Chinese and Japanese. As reported, the
participants in this study came from L1 backgrounds of Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, and
Chinese. As previously suggested, this discrepancy in results, too, points toward the need
56
for more investigation into possible effects of the L1 and L2 in morphological
decomposition.
2.6 Implications for Language Pedagogy
Morphological awareness is a skill that develops in language learners over time
and with many hours of practice. Studies such as those done by Ramirez et al. (2011) and
Marinova-Todd et al. (2013) demonstrate the important link between morphological
awareness and abilities in word reading and spelling for L2 learners of English in that
increased levels of morphological awareness lead to increases in word reading and
spelling abilities. However, it could be argued that while morphological awareness is
certainly correlated with reading and spelling, the speed or level of automaticity with
which an L2 learner of English is able to use their knowledge of English morphology
matters for reading speed. In other words, the ability to morphologically decompose a
word into its constituents for recognition automatically as native speakers do likely leads
to faster reading times. This is evidenced by the 200 ms difference on average in RTs
between native and non-native speakers of English in the current study.
For L2 learners of English desiring to earn an education in an English-speaking
country, like the L2 participants in this study, the ability to read efficiently in English is
arguably a necessary skill. The data suggest that the ability to morphologically
decompose words into their constituents automatically leads to faster recognition time
and thus faster reading time. Therefore, more explicit teaching of English morphological
word families and practice composing and decomposing words into their morphological
constituents and various forms may be needed as part of a strategy for L2 learners of
English to develop the ability to read quickly and efficiently in English. Moreover,
57
because no significant difference in RTs was found between intermediate proficiency and
advanced proficiency learners in the present study, one could argue that these kinds of
morphology education and practice should extend past the beginning and intermediate
levels of English language education and continue even into the advanced high levels.
2.7 Implications for L2 Word Storage
The results of studies, such as the present, exploring morphological
decomposition abilities in non-native speakers can provide unique insight into the
possible ways in which L2 words are stored in the mental lexicon. For native speakers, it
has been argued that words are recognized via a dual-route system which consists of (1)
whole-word storage route for irregularly inflected words and (2) a route involving
morphological decomposition to recognize regularly inflected words (e.g. reviews in
Diependaele, et al. 2011 & Gor & Cook, 2010). Citing evidence from many studies of
second language learners, two popular models exist which tout that adult L2 learners
store L2 words quite differently than those in L1. Namely, the declarative/procedural
model (Ullman, 2012) and the shallow structure hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006)
suggest that adult L2 learners do not decompose words in the way that native speakers do
until a superior level of proficiency is achieved. Thus, both models argue for whole-word
representations of L2 words in the mental lexicon. The findings of the present study lend
support to these models in that no significant priming effects in the derivational
conditions were found in either the intermediate or advanced L2 learner groups.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research
58
committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or
comparable ethical standards.
2.8 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth Forster for all of his assistance and council in
the development of the masked priming experiment.
2.9 Addendum
The following section does not appear in the original article published by
Springer. It is an addendum with another set of data relevant to what was published in the
article above.
Participants Following up on my own suggestion at the end of this article, a
‘superior’ level group was run in a third experiment. This group’s proficiency level is
defined as a C2 on the CEFR scale and all were faculty and/or graduate teaching
assistants at the University of Arizona. A total of 16 subjects were run. Of the 15, 8 began
learning English before the age of 12 (early learners) and 7 began after 12 years (late
learners). The L1s of each subject are listed below in Table 5.
L1
Arabic
Portuguese
German
Italian
Russian
Thai
Spanish
N
4
1
2
2
2
1
3
Table 5. Number of superior NNS speakers in each L1 background
Materials & Procedures As aforementioned, this third experiment was spurred by
suggestions for further research at the culmination of experiments 1 and 2. In light of this,
59
the items used in the present study were a slightly modified version of those that
appeared in experiments 1 and 2. While the former experiments made use of a
‘morphological’ condition, comprised of both inflected and derived versions of the target,
in order to speak to the debate of single vs. dual-route morphological processing models,
this third experiment implemented separate priming conditions for derived (e.g.
celebration – CELEBRATE) and inflected words (e.g. celebrated-CELEBRATE). Items
in the derived condition were created by adding one of the following suffixes to the
target: -er/-or, -al, -y, -tion, -ful, -ing. Items in the inflected condition were created by
adding plural –s or third person singular –s to the target, or past tense regular –ed.
Furthermore, an orthographic control condition was included in order to show that any
morphological effects were not due simply to form overlap. The orthographic control
items were non-words created by changing 1 letter of the target word (e.g. selectSELECT).
In order to determine if the form overlap between the target and the inflected and
derived conditions was equal to the form overlap between the target and the orthographic
control condition, Spatial Coding Model (SCM) values (Davis, 2010) were calculated.
The mean SCM value for orthographic overlap between the target and the orthographic
control condition was .837. The mean SCM value for orthographic overlap between the
target and the derived condition was .837 and .841 for the inflected condition. T-tests
revealed no significant difference in form overlap between the orthographic control
condition and the derived condition (t = .04) nor between the orthographic control
condition and the inflected condition (t = .2). Many of the items from experiments 1 and
2 were used for the derived and inflected conditions, but the orthographic control items
60
were completely new. These changes resulted in 80 word targets and 80 non-word
targets. A full list of the experimental items for this study can be found in Appendix B.
As in the first two experiments, participants in the superior level group took the
paper and pencil test of morphological awareness as well. However, short new
component was tacked onto the end. Upon completion of the masked priming experiment
and morphological awareness test, all were asked a set of 3 questions to determine
eligibility to be included in analysis: (1) How old were you when you started to learn
English? (2) How long, in total, have you lived in a country were the predominant
language spoken was English? (3) Did you learn English mostly in a formal classroom
setting or in a naturalistic way?
Data Analysis & Results The same method of data analysis used in experiments 1
and 2 was used for this data set as well with the exception that the data was first analyzed
for the whole group and then broken down by early and late learners. The data from 2
participants in the early learner group were rejected due to error rates at 21% or above.
Whole Group The mean RTs among the whole group for each condition of the
word target trials are shown in Table 6. The mixed-effects model analysis revealed
significant priming effects in the derived condition (t = 3.22), the inflected condition (t =
3.78), and the repetition prime condition (t = 4.38). Effects approaching significance were
found in the orthographic control condition (t = 1.8). The results of a t-test reveal no
statistically significant difference between the derived and inflected conditions (t = .5, p
>.05). Next, the reaction times for the inflected and derived conditions were each
compared against the orthographic control condition. T-tests resulted no difference in
reaction times between the inflected and orthographic control conditions (t = 1.07, p =
61
.28) and no significant difference between the derived and orthographic control
conditions (t = 1.6, p = .11). On the paper and pencil test of morphological awareness, all
participants scored 100%.
Unrelated
control
587 ms
Orthographic
control
567 ms
Derived
Inflected
Repetition
561 ms
560 ms
552 ms
Table 6. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for all superior non-native
speakers
Late Learners The mean RTs among the late learners for each condition of the
word target trials are shown in Table 7. The mixed-effects model analysis revealed
significant priming effects in the orthographic control condition (t = 2.37), the derived
condition (t = 2.03), the inflected condition (t = 2.72), and the repetition prime condition
(t = 4.105). The results of a t-test reveal no statistically significant difference between the
derived and inflected conditions (t = .78, p >.05). Next, the reaction times for the
inflected and derived conditions were each compared against the orthographic control
condition. T-tests resulted in a difference in reaction times between the inflected and
orthographic control conditions approaching significance (t = 1.91, p = .057) and no
significant difference between the derived and orthographic control conditions (t = 1.46,
p. >.05).
Unrelated
control
614 ms
Orthographic
control
591 ms
Derived
Inflected
Repetition
595 ms
595 ms
572 ms
Table 7. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for late superior nonnative speakers
62
Early Learners The mean RTs among the late learners for each condition of the
word target trials are shown in Table 8. The mixed-effects model analysis revealed
significant priming effects in the the derived condition (t = 2.25), the inflected condition
(t = 2.04), and approached significance in the repetition prime condition (t = 1.94).
However, no significant effects were found in the orthographic control condition (t =
0.017). The results of a t-test reveal no statistically significant difference between the
derived and inflected conditions (t = 1.29, p =.19). Next, the reaction times for the
inflected and derived conditions were each compared against the orthographic control
condition. T-tests resulted in no difference in reaction times between the inflected and
orthographic control conditions (t = 1.94, p = .34) nor the derived and orthographic
control conditions (t = .96, p =.33).
Unrelated
control
554 ms
Orthographic
control
549 ms
Derived
Inflected
Repetition
525 ms
524 ms
531 ms
Table 8. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for early superior nonnative speakers
Discussion
Although reaction times and t values did not reach the same speed and level of
significance as the native speaker group, this data set would appear to suggest that late
and early learners of English at a superior level of proficiency decompose
morphologically complex words for recognition and that they are able to use their offline
knowledge of English morphology to do this. However, a closer look at the analyses
63
comparing effects in the orthographic control conditions with the morphological
conditions gives reason for caution. Whether the data was analyzed whole group or by
early vs. late learners, the pattern of results is still the same: morphological priming
effects do not statistically differ from those found in the orthographic control conditions.
This would suggest that the significant morphological priming effects may be driven by
form overlap between the prime and the target. However, the subject pool for this study
was quite small, so larger group of late vs. early learners should be run before any major
claims are made.
Implications & Limitations
Preliminarily, this study provides support for Ullman’s declarative/procedural
model in that, over time, late learners can decompose morphologically complex words as
native speakers do. In fact, this particular data set would suggest that there is no
difference between early and late learners in being able to decompose morphologically
complex words. However, it is unclear from the present study whether this is because
they are able to use their offline knowledge of English morphology in word recognition
or because they rely purely form relationships. Of course, a number of other variables in
addition to proficiency may be at play here, influencing the development of native-like
processing skills.
As aforementioned, participants were also asked how long they’d resided in an
English-speaking country and how they learned English as a second language. On
average, this group of participants had lived in a country where English was the
predominant language for a mean of 8.6 years (range: 2.5-16 years). The NNS groups in
experiment 2 were international students studying at a local intensive English program.
64
Despite indicating that most had studied English for quite some time, the vast majority of
such students are coming to live in an English speaking country for the first time when
they enroll in an intensive English program. As the data set for this group was collected
mid fall semester, it is safe to estimate that subjects in these two proficiency groups had
only been living in an English speaking country for 2 months – 1 year, as most students
arriving in August are new and intensive English programs graduate students in 12
months. Therefore, members of the superior proficiency group as a whole had
significantly more exposure to the English language than the NNS groups in experiment
2, which in turn may influence proficiency.
Secondly, the method of acquiring the second language may have some effect on
morphological processing skills. Because both proficiency groups in experiment 2 were
enrolled in an intensive English program, one could label this group as having learned
English mostly in a formal classroom setting. A look at the responses to this question
from the superior group shows that 8 out of 15 acquired English mostly in a formal
setting, much like the former groups, and that 7 out of 15 acquired English in a mixture
of formal classroom settings and more naturalistic ways, such as extended periods of
travel or living in a country speaking the target language, large amounts of exposure to
authentic media in the target language (e.g. movies, magazines, books), or learning
through conversation with native speakers. With this small subject pool essentially
divided in half on this question, it is difficult to say whether a formal versus a naturalistic
way of acquiring the L2 may have an influence on morphological processing. More
subjects would need to be run in order to generate a hypothesis.
65
In regards to single- and dual-route models of morphological processing, because
significant priming effects were found in both the derived and inflected conditions and
there was no statistically significant difference between the two, this evidence supports
dual-route models (e.g. Taft & Forster, 1975; Clahsen, 1999; Pinker and Ullman, 2002)
of morphological processing. Such models are those that posit rule-based decomposition
happens in order to recognize morphologically complex words. The results of experiment
3 reveal effects in line with rule-based decomposition for both inflected and derived
items, as no irregular items (e.g. kept – KEEP vs. talked – TALK) were used.
Conclusion & Future Research A large limitation of this third experiment, as
previously mentioned, was the small sample size. To make more legitimate claims, more
subjects need to be run in future work. However, despite only analyzing data from 13
subjects, significant priming effects were still obtained, suggesting that this trend is
reliable. Further research in this line of inquiry may have significant implications for
Ullman’s declarative/procedural model of late L2 word processing and storage, such that
native-like processing and word storage develop very gradually over time as learners
grow in proficiency. Other variables to be explored could include: years residing in a
country predominantly speaking the L2 and method of acquiring the L2.
To further investigate the possible role of form overlap in L2 morphological
priming, a masked intervenor experiment could be useful in teasing apart form and
morphological effects (Forster, 2009; Forster, 2013). Such experiments have been shown
to wipe out form priming but retain semantic effects.
66
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics
using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with
crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,
59, 390-412.
Carlisle, J. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth,
sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247-266.
Carlisle, J. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex
words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12,
169–190.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3-42. doi:10.1017/S0142716406060024.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, C. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological
Review, 117, 713-758.
Diependaele, K., Dun˜abeitia, J. A., Morris, J., & Keuleers, E. (2011). Fast
morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of
Memory and Language, 64(4), 344358. doi:10.1016/ j.jml.2011.01.003.
Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). Early
morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-
67
orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 684- 691.
Forster, K. (2009). The intervenor effect in masked priming: How does masked priming
survive across an intervening word? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, p. 3649.
Forster, K. (2013). How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in
masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, p. 563-573.
Goldfield, J. (2010). Comparison of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Dr. Joel Goldfield. Retrieved
December 8, 2013, http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jgoldfield/ACTFLCEFRcomparisons09-10.pdf.
Goodwin, A., Huggins, A., Carlo, M., August, D. & Calderon, M. (2013). Minding
morphology: How morphological awareness relates to reading for English
language learners. Reading and Writing, 26, 1387-1415.
Gor, K., & Cook, S. (2010). Non-native processing of verbal morphology: In search of
regularity. Language Learning, 60(1), 88-126. doi:10.1111/j.14679922.2009.00552.x.
Gor, K. & Jackson, S. (2013). Morphological decomposition and lexical access in a
native and second language: A nesting doll effect. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 28(7), 1065-1091.
Taft, M. & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647.
68
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K. & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency
and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61(3), 940-967.
Kempley, S. & Morton, J. (1982). The effects of irregularly related words in auditory
word recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 441-454.
Kieffer, M. & Lesaux, N. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading
comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and
Writing, 21, 783-804.
Kieffer, M. & Lesaux, N. (2012). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in
the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and
Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), 1170-1204.
Marinova-Todd, S., Siegel, L. & Mazabel, S. (2013). The Association Between
Morphological Awareness and Literacy in English Language Learners From
Different Language Backgrounds. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1), 93-107.
Masrai, A. & Milton, J. (2011). Investigating the relationship between the morphological
processing of regular and irregular words and L2 vocabulary acquisition.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(4), p. 192199.
Murrell, G. & Morton, A. (1974). Word recognition and morphemic structures. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 102, 963-968.
69
Ramirez, G., Esther Geva, X., & Luo, Y. (2011). Morphological awareness and word
reading in English language learners: Evidence from Spanish- and Chinesespeaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 601-618.
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morphoorthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 11, 1090–1098.
Rojstaczer, S. & Healy, C. (2010). Grading in American colleges and universities.
Teachers College Record, http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 15928, Date
Accessed: 8/2/2015 1:48:04 PM.
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2
processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.
Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., Hernon, W. P. & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for
morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
18, 399–412.
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory &
Cognition, 7, 263-272.
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(4), 745-765.
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.
70
Ullman, M. T. (2012). The declarative/procedural model. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 160-164). New York
& London: Routledge.
71
Appendix A- Primes Across Three Conditions for Word and Non-Word Targets
Morphological
Repetition Control
TARGET
contractor
contract
picture
CONTRACT
amazing
amaze
television
AMAZE
equally
equal
sleep
EQUAL
creation
create
eat
CREATE
excited
excite
floor
EXCITE
meaningful
meaning
cup
MEANING
patience
patient
husband
PATIENT
retirer
retire
painting
RETIRE
happiness
happy
window
HAPPY
rider
ride
desk
RIDE
studier
study
dog
STUDY
attraction
attract
game
ATTRACT
surprising
surprise
fruit
SURPRISE
gladly
glad
shop
GLAD
believer
believe
stereo
BELIEVE
sleepily
sleepy
agent
SLEEPY
horrific
horror
update
HORROR
argument
argue
sweater
ARGUE
chemistry
chemist
cabinet
CHEMIST
winner
win
buy
WIN
72
hiker
hike
chair
HIKE
successful
success
imagine
SUCCESS
separation
separate
inside
SEPARATE
resistance
resist
beautiful
RESIST
freedom
free
wood
FREE
wrongly
wrong
double
WRONG
graduation
graduate
kitchen
GRADUATE
continuity
continue
dinner
CONTINUE
dreamer
dream
forest
DREAM
beautiful
beauty
sky
BEAUTY
privacy
private
tree
PRIVATE
drawing
draw
son
DRAW
relaxer
relax
mouth
RELAX
prettiness
pretty
career
PRETTY
smartness
smart
glasses
SMART
boredom
bored
paste
BORED
assistant
assist
pillow
ASSIST
realism
real
surface
RELAX
director
direct
remote
DIRECT
original
origin
hammer
ORIGIN
toucher
touch
fire
TOUCH
storage
store
kill
STORE
musical
music
grass
MUSIC
73
approval
approve
river
APPROVE
magical
magic
hill
MAGIC
historian
history
sun
HISTORY
swimmer
swim
peace
SWIM
curiosity
curious
story
CURIOUS
exhaustion
exhaust
count
EXHAUST
medication
medicate
vote
MEDICATE
hopeful
hope
sick
HOPE
engager
engage
original
ENGAGE
wealthy
wealth
paper
WEALTH
frightened
frighten
everyone
FRIGHTEN
removal
remove
secret
REMOVE
endless
end
fish
END
terrify
terror
lotion
TERROR
regional
region
progress
REGION
stressor
stress
drive
STRESS
brightly
bright
search
BRIGHT
cantraptual
cantrapt
donsible
CANTRAPT
abamely
abame
zelchent
ABAME
eheality
eheal
lonplute
EHEAL
greamer
greame
bertrate
GREAME
obcitiful
obcite
gembling
OBCITE
bealing
bealing
trutican
BEAL
74
katiancy
katiant
documert
KATIANT
gotirical
gotire
embation
GOTIRE
bampy
bamp
biblital
BAMP
cadish
cade
cluthong
CADE
stidest
stide
aoboromy
STIDE
altranty
altrant
athretic
ALTRANT
staprisen
staprise
neribate
STAPRISE
platty
plat
emoterate
PLAT
paliever
palieve
granmit
PALIEVE
sloapiness
sloapy
palisher
SLOAPY
moaroric
moaror
cubardy
MOAROR
platted
plat
nelth
PLAT
nirly
nir
hoest
NIR
tiper
tipe
fruze
TIPE
knoper
knope
fluik
KNOPE
croser
crose
crube
CROSE
anoker
anoke
sreem
ANOKE
filttest
filtt
tunt
FILTT
reackly
reack
zlot
REACK
morgiven
morgave
betrak
MORGAVE
leamt
leam
pruvit
LEAM
sackessful
sackess
progstil
SACKESS
regarater
regarate
sleaprom
REGARATE
75
repustful
repust
thoraph
REPUST
fleppy
flep
haftange
FLEP
wrinky
wrink
edinmar
WRINK
galkish
galk
rusliz
GALK
tukely
tuke
cublire
TUKE
pimer
pime
strin
PIME
bramly
bram
splondet
BRAM
rolagish
rolag
proctian
ROLAG
pralty
pralt
lespasal
PRALT
skarmy
skarm
tenasive
SKARM
toathed
toath
debolten
TOATH
choocker
choock
sormuten
CHOOCK
blapped
blap
etan
BLAP
leaty
leat
vitropen
LEAT
measer
mease
mertagot
MEASE
continery
continer
wokindy
CONTINER
greemy
greem
mahoufet
GREEM
seartiness
searty
largiard
SEARTY
krimater
krimate
scotfry
KRIMATE
bramful
bram
homdram
BRAM
alked
alk
jelopran
ALK
srammy
sram
crolotan
SRAM
gupiousity
gupious
noritarn
GUPIOUS
76
echarstful
echarst
mibasior
ECHARST
merigated
merigate
singulat
MERIGATE
rokeish
roke
borriton
ROKE
enraked
enrake
wanifold
ENRAKE
weelchy
weelch
sclupant
WEELCH
strags
strag
urkle
STRAG
klights
klight
spail
KLIGHT
RAMIVE
ramival
ramive
chekiny
77
Appendix B- Primes Across Five Conditions for Word and Non-Word Targets in
Experiment 3
Inflected
Derived
Repetition Unrelated Orthographic
Control
Control
Target
contracts
amazed
equals
created
holds
meanings
hoped
retired
likes
rides
studied
attracts
contraction
amazing
equally
creation
holder
meaningful
hopeful
retirer
likely
rider
studying
attraction
contract
amaze
equal
create
hold
meaning
hope
retire
like
ride
study
attract
picture
television
sleep
flower
floor
cup
clock
painting
window
desk
dog
game
contrapt
amile
emeal
creoke
dold
melning
hape
ratore
loke
rade
stidy
attrapt
CONTRACT
AMAZE
EQUAL
CREATE
HOLD
MEANING
HOPE
RETIRE
LIKE
RIDE
STUDY
ATTRACT
surprised
basics
believed
sleeps
rained
cooks
dissmissed
wins
hiked
hurts
separated
blends
surprising
basically
believer
sleepily
raining
cooking
dismissal
winner
hiker
hurtful
separation
blender
surprise
basic
believe
sleep
rain
cook
dismiss
win
hike
hurt
separate
blend
fruit
shop
stereo
agent
update
sweater
cabinet
buy
chair
imagine
inside
beautiful
staprise
bosic
beloave
sleap
roin
coak
desmass
wan
hoke
hort
saporate
blund
SURPRISE
BASIC
BELIEVE
SLEEPY
RAIN
COOK
DISMISS
WIN
HIKE
HURT
SEPARATE
BLEND
acted
weeks
meets
feels
dreamed
wonders
hated
paints
relaxed
extremes
completes
action
weekly
meeting
feeling
dreamer
wonderful
hateful
painting
relaxing
extremely
completely
act
week
meet
feel
dream
wonder
hate
paint
relax
extreme
complete
wood
double
kitchen
dinner
carpet
sky
tree
son
mouth
career
glasses
ast
weik
ment
feil
droom
wolder
hite
poant
relox
extrime
complite
ACT
WEEK
MEET
FEEL
DREAM
WONDER
HATE
PAINT
RELAX
EXTREME
COMPLETE
78
rests
restful
rest
paste
reast
REST
clinics
retrieves
directed
origins
touched
slows
natured
nations
logics
brides
swims
dreaded
clinical
retrieval
direction
original
touching
slowly
natural
national
logical
bridal
swimmer
dreadful
clinic
retrieve
direct
origin
touch
slow
nature
nation
logic
bride
swim
dread
pillow
surface
remote
hammer
fire
kill
grass
river
hill
sun
peace
story
clanic
retroave
diract
origon
toach
slowt
noture
nution
lagic
brode
swom
dreed
CLINIC
RETRIEVE
DIRECT
ORIGIN
TOUCH
SLOW
nature
NATION
LOGIC
BRIDE
SWIM
DREAD
selects
occasions
wished
sings
devoted
equates
removes
invented
powers
regions
stressed
cleared
selection
occasionally
wishful
singer
devotion
equation
removal
invention
powerful
regional
stressful
clearly
select
occasion
wish
sing
devote
equate
remove
invent
power
region
stress
clear
count
vote
sick
original
paper
everyone
secret
fish
lotion
progress
drive
search
selact
occusion
wosh
seng
devite
equote
remoave
invant
pawer
regoan
striss
cloar
SELECT
OCCASION
WISH
SING
DEVOTE
EQUATE
REMOVE
INVENT
POWER
REGION
STRESS
CLEAR
contripes
abamed
eheals
greamed
obcites
bealed
katiants
gotired
bamps
cades
stided
altrants
contriped
abamely
eheality
greamer
obcitiful
bealing
katiancy
gotirical
bampy
cadish
stidest
altranty
contripe
abame
eheal
greame
obcite
beal
katiant
gotire
bamp
cade
stide
altrant
donsible
zelchent
lonplute
bertrate
gembling
trutican
documert
embation
biblital
cluthong
aoboromy
athretic
cantrope
apime
egeel
groame
oppite
neel
kartrant
gatore
bimp
cude
stode
altrolt
CONTRIPE
ABAME
EHEAL
GREAME
OBCITE
BEAL
KATIANT
GOTIRE
BAMP
CADE
STIDE
ALTRANT
staprised
plats
palieved
sloapys
moarors
staprisen
platty
paliever
sloapiness
moaroric
staprise
plat
palieve
sloapy
moaror
neribate
emoterate
granmit
palisher
cubardy
stoprase
plit
poleave
sleapy
mearer
STAPRISE
PLAT
PALIEVE
SLOAPY
MOAROR
79
blats
nirs
tiped
knoped
croses
anoked
filtts
blatted
nirly
tiper
knoper
croser
anoker
filttest
blat
nir
tipe
knope
crose
anoke
filtt
nelth
hoest
fruze
fluik
crube
sreem
tunt
blut
nar
tope
snope
crise
anake
foltt
BLAT
NIR
TIPE
KNOPE
CROSE
ANOKE
FILTT
reacks
morgaved
learns
sackesses
regarated
repusts
fleps
wrinks
galked
tuked
pimed
brams
reackly
morgiven
leamt
sackessful
regarater
repustful
fleppy
wrinky
galkish
tukely
pimer
bramly
reack
morgave
leam
sackess
regarate
repust
flep
wrink
galk
tuke
pime
bram
zlot
betrak
pruvit
progstil
sleaprom
thoraph
haftange
edinmar
rusliz
cublire
strin
splondet
roock
marsave
laim
sockess
regorite
rapost
flup
wronk
gulk
teek
pome
brum
REACK
MORGAVE
LEAM
SACKESS
REGARATE
REPUST
FLEP
WRINK
GALK
TUKE
PIME
BRAM
rolags
pralted
skarms
toathed
choocks
blaps
leated
meases
continers
greemed
seartys
krimated
rolagish
pralty
skarmy
toathed
choocker
blapped
leaty
measer
continery
greemy
seartiness
krimater
rolag
pralt
skarm
toath
choock
blap
leat
mease
continer
greem
searty
krimate
proctian
lespasal
tenasive
debolten
sormuten
etan
vitropen
mertagot
wokindy
mahoufet
largiard
scotfry
ralug
pront
skilm
teath
chonk
blop
loat
moise
cantoner
griem
soarty
kromite
ROLAG
PRALT
SKARM
TOATH
CHOOCK
BLAP
LEAT
MEASE
CONTINER
GREEM
SEARTY
KRIMATE
prams
alks
srams
gupious
echarsts
merigated
roked
enraked
weelches
strags
klights
ramived
pramful
alked
srammy
gupiousity
echarstful
merigated
rokeish
enraked
weelchy
strags
klights
ramival
pram
alk
sram
gupious
echarst
merigate
roke
enrake
weelch
strag
klight
ramive
homdram
jelopran
crolotan
noritarn
mibasior
singulat
borriton
wanifold
sclupant
urkle
spail
chekiny
prum
aln
srim
gapius
echorsk
morigute
ruke
enroike
wealch
strog
kloat
rimove
PRAM
ALK
SRAM
GUPIOUS
ECHARST
MERIGATE
ROKE
ENRAKE
WEELCH
STRAG
KLIGHT
RAMIVE
80
Appendix C- Test of Morphological Awareness
Name:
How many years have you studied English (in the U.S. + in your country)?:
What is your native language?:
Complete the following sentences with the correct form of the word:
1. You should ______________(continuous) to study hard to enter graduate school.
2. He has a neat and clean _____________________ (appear).
3. There are __________________(extremely) changes in temperature from
morning to night in the desert.
4. My sister is an excellent _____________________(swim).
5. Americans across the _______________(national) will vote in the election next
year.
6. Because of our love for technology, it would be difficult to live without
____________________(electric).
7. In my free time, I like to listen to __________________(musician).
8. The two teachers ___________________(difference) greatly in their teaching
styles.
9. Where would you like to eat dinner? Please make a
____________________(decide).
10. The company is working to ________________(reduction) the amount of waste it
produces.
11. You should be ______________(care) when you go to that city; it’s dangerous.
81
12. Please ______________________(description) your plan to finish the research
project.
13. Iman has never studied English before, he’s a
________________________(begin).
14. The ________________(major) of students at the university want to have a longer
vacation.
15. She’s a great teacher because she gives very clear
_______________________(explain).
16. Wow! The movie theater is totally ___________________(emptiness)! We can sit
anywhere!
82
Appendix D – Spring Copyright Agreement
SPRINGER LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Jun 24, 2015
This is a License Agreement between Rachel E Kraut ("You") and Springer ("Springer")
provided by Copyright Clearance Center ("CCC"). The license consists of your order
details, the terms and conditions provided by Springer, and the payment terms and
conditions.
All payments must be made in full to CCC. For payment instructions, please see
information listed at the bottom of this form.
License Number
3655481101247
License date
Jun 24, 2015
Licensed content publisher
Springer
Licensed content publication
Reading and Writing
Licensed content title
The relationship between morphological awareness and morphological decomposition
among English language learners
Licensed content author
83
Rachel Kraut
Licensed content date
Jan 1, 2015
Volume number
28
Issue number
6
Type of Use
Thesis/Dissertation
Portion
Full text
Number of copies
1
Author of this Springer article
Yes and you are the sole author of the new work
Order reference number
None
Title of your thesis / dissertation
The Development of Second Language Reading and Morphological Skills
Expected completion date
May 2016
Estimated size(pages)
100
84
Total
0.00 USD
Terms and Conditions
Introduction
The publisher for this copyrighted material is Springer Science + Business Media. By
clicking "accept" in connection with completing this licensing transaction, you agree that
the following terms and conditions apply to this transaction (along with the Billing and
Payment terms and conditions established by Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. ("CCC"),
at the time that you opened your Rightslink account and that are available at any time
athttp://myaccount.copyright.com).
Limited License
With reference to your request to reprint in your thesis material on which Springer
Science and Business Media control the copyright, permission is granted, free of charge,
for the use indicated in your enquiry.
Licenses are for one-time use only with a maximum distribution equal to the number that
you identified in the licensing process.
This License includes use in an electronic form, provided its password protected or on the
university’s intranet or repository, including UMI (according to the definition at the
Sherpa website: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/). For any other electronic use, please
contact Springer at ([email protected] or
[email protected]).
85
The material can only be used for the purpose of defending your thesis limited to
university-use only. If the thesis is going to be published, permission needs to be reobtained (selecting "book/textbook" as the type of use).
Although Springer holds copyright to the material and is entitled to negotiate on rights,
this license is only valid, subject to a courtesy information to the author (address is given
with the article/chapter) and provided it concerns original material which does not carry
references to other sources (if material in question appears with credit to another source,
authorization from that source is required as well).
Permission free of charge on this occasion does not prejudice any rights we might have to
charge for reproduction of our copyrighted material in the future.
Altering/Modifying Material: Not Permitted
You may not alter or modify the material in any manner. Abbreviations, additions,
deletions and/or any other alterations shall be made only with prior written authorization
of the author(s) and/or Springer Science + Business Media. (Please contact Springer at
([email protected] or [email protected])
Reservation of Rights
Springer Science + Business Media reserves all rights not specifically granted in the
combination of (i) the license details provided by you and accepted in the course of this
licensing transaction, (ii) these terms and conditions and (iii) CCC's Billing and Payment
terms and conditions.
86
Copyright Notice:Disclaimer
You must include the following copyright and permission notice in connection with any
reproduction of the licensed material: "Springer and the original publisher /journal title,
volume, year of publication, page, chapter/article title, name(s) of author(s), figure
number(s), original copyright notice) is given to the publication in which the material was
originally published, by adding; with kind permission from Springer Science and
Business Media"
Warranties: None
Example 1: Springer Science + Business Media makes no representations or warranties
with respect to the licensed material.
Example 2: Springer Science + Business Media makes no representations or warranties
with respect to the licensed material and adopts on its own behalf the limitations and
disclaimers established by CCC on its behalf in its Billing and Payment terms and
conditions for this licensing transaction.
Indemnity
You hereby indemnify and agree to hold harmless Springer Science + Business Media
and CCC, and their respective officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against
any and all claims arising out of your use of the licensed material other than as
specifically authorized pursuant to this license.
87
No Transfer of License
This license is personal to you and may not be sublicensed, assigned, or transferred by
you to any other person without Springer Science + Business Media's written permission.
No Amendment Except in Writing
This license may not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties (or, in the
case of Springer Science + Business Media, by CCC on Springer Science + Business
Media's behalf).
Objection to Contrary Terms
Springer Science + Business Media hereby objects to any terms contained in any
purchase order, acknowledgment, check endorsement or other writing prepared by you,
which terms are inconsistent with these terms and conditions or CCC's Billing and
Payment terms and conditions. These terms and conditions, together with CCC's Billing
and Payment terms and conditions (which are incorporated herein), comprise the entire
agreement between you and Springer Science + Business Media (and CCC) concerning
this licensing transaction. In the event of any conflict between your obligations
established by these terms and conditions and those established by CCC's Billing and
Payment terms and conditions, these terms and conditions shall control.
Jurisdiction
All disputes that may arise in connection with this present License, or the breach thereof,
shall be settled exclusively by arbitration, to be held in The Netherlands, in accordance
with Dutch law, and to be conducted under the Rules of the 'Netherlands Arbitrage
Instituut' (Netherlands Institute of Arbitration).OR:
88
All disputes that may arise in connection with this present License, or the breach
thereof, shall be settled exclusively by arbitration, to be held in the Federal Republic
of Germany, in accordance with German law.
Other terms and conditions:
v1.3
Questions? [email protected] or +1-855-239-3415 (toll free in the US) or
+1-978-646-2777.
89
Morphological Priming among English Language Learners: An Issue of
Form?
ABSTRACT
Evidence from a number of recent masked morphological priming studies
suggests that late learners of English are capable of decomposing regular
morphologically complex words for recognition in the way that native speakers do at
higher levels of proficiency (e.g. Beyersman et al., 2014; Kraut, unpublished; Gor &
Jackson, 2013). However, little to work has explored the possibility that these significant
morphological priming effects among highly proficient late L2 learners may come from
another source altogether: effects of orthographic overlap. It could be that late L2 learners
only show significant morphological priming effects because of orthographic overlap
between the prime and the target. To test this hypothesis, a masked intervenor paradigm
was used (Forster 2009 & 2013) with a group of native English speakers (N = 35) and a
group of intermediate level non-native speakers (N = 38). Results from the native group
mirror those of previous masked intervenor work (Forster 2009 & 2013) while the data
from the non-native group is inconclusive. Suggestions for further experimentation to
shed new light upon the issue are discussed.
90
3.1 Introduction & Previous Literature
Evidence from a number of recent masked morphological priming studies
suggests that late learners of English are capable of decomposing regular
morphologically complex words for recognition in the way that native speakers do at
high levels of proficiency (e.g. Beyersman et al., 2014; Kraut, unpublished; Gor &
Jackson, 2013). However, little to work has explored the possibility that these significant
morphological priming effects among highly proficient late L2 learners may come from
another source altogether: effects of orthographic overlap.
In the last few years, numerous studies have surfaced demonstrating that
morphological priming effects in L1 are significantly different from orthographic priming
effects, implying that such effects cannot simply be due to form overlap between the
prime and target (e.g. Grainger, Colé & Segui, 1991). Researchers who conduct studies of
L1 morphological priming often include orthographic control conditions in order to
safely make this claim, as there is usually a large degree of form similarity between base
words and their derived or inflected forms. However, many of the most recent studies that
have been done with advanced late L2 learners resulting in significant morphological
priming were conducted without orthographic control conditions (e.g. Beyersmann et al.,
2014; Gor & Jackson, 2013; Voga et al., 2014), leaving open the question of whether or
not these priming effects would differ significantly from an orthographic control
condition.
To explore the possibility of form overlap playing a role in L2 morphological
priming effects, an experimental technique which is able to separate form and semantic
91
effects is necessary, as these are often thought to be the two of the main components
involved in morphological priming (e.g. Feldman et al., 2012). The masked intervenor
paradigm debuted by Forster (2009 & 2013) is one such experimental design. Intervenor
experiments are modified versions of a traditional masked priming experiment in that
another stimulus is added to the display, either between the prime and the target (nonadjacent) or before the prime (adjacent) for 50 ms (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Sequence of stimuli in adjacent (right side) and non-adjacent (left side) visible
intervenor experiments (from Forster, 2009)
Forster (2009) found that when the intervenor is masked, form priming is
eliminated but identity priming effects remain the same as in experiments where the
intervenor was visible. Taken together, the results of the four experiments in the paper
suggest that identity priming is comprised of a form component and a semantic
component, the latter of which is able to survive an intervenor. These results were
92
supported by later experiments (Forster, 2013) in which congruence effects were found
for identity primes in a semantic categorization task, despite the inclusion of an
intervenor.
3.2 The Present Study
The use of a masked intervenor paradigm is, therefore, a prime candidate for the
present study. If form overlap is the source of significant morphological priming effects
for L2 learners, the results would show no significant difference between priming effects
in the morphological condition and those in the orthographic control condition. However,
if L2 learners are truly able to access the morphological components of words for
decomposition and recognition, results of the intervenor experiment would produce
priming effects which differed statistically between the morphological and orthographic
control conditions.
3.3 Experiment 1 – Native Speakers
Methods & Results
Participants To investigate this line of inquiry, a total of 35 native English-speaking
undergraduate students from the University of Arizona participated in this experiment
(mean age = 21.5; age range = 18-27). They received credit for an introductory
psychology class at the university. Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Materials and Design Target words consisted of 60 words and 60 non-words ranging
from 3-8 letters in length (mean length = 5.3 letters). The word targets selected for the
93
study needed to be moderately frequent to ensure that the non-native participants in the
intermediate proficiency group would not be presented with words unfamiliar to them.
For this reason, the average CELEX frequency value of word targets was 111.8. Nonword targets were created by changing 2 letters of each word target. For each target, four
primes were used (a) morphologically derived versions of the target (e.g. winner-WIN);
(b) repetition primes and (c) unrelated word primes and (d) orthographic control primes.
Previous studies of masked L2 morphological priming (e.g. Kraut, 2015) have found
significant repetition priming effects among lower proficiency groups of L2 learners,
despite a lack of significant morphological priming. Therefore, this priming condition is
included as a kind of failsafe to show that there is not some inherent problem with the
items themselves as priming can still be achieved. Lastly, the intervenors were comprised
of non-word items ranging from 3-11 letters in length (mean length = 5.8).The full set of
primes and targets can be found in the Appendix A.
Four sets of prime-target lists (files A, B, C, and D) each consisting of 4 blocks with
15 targets each for a total of 60 targets were used in the experiment. Targets remained the
same on all three lists while items in the four prime conditions were counterbalanced. In
other words, each target appeared once in every list across subjects, but in one of the
three prime conditions. In the native speaker group, 9 participants were tested on file A, 9
on file B, 8 on file C, and 8 on file D.
Procedure The experiment items were presented as black letters on a white
background (Courier New12 pt font. Each trial the participants saw consisted of four
stimuli: (1) a row of hash marks (####) displayed for 500 ms; (2) the prime in lowercase
letters displayed for 50 ms; (3) the intervenor in lowercase letters displayed for 50 ms;
94
and (4) the target in uppercase letters displayed for 500 ms. The experiment was run on a
Pentium PC using K. Forster & J. Forster’s DMASTR DMDX software program using a
color monitor with a refresh cycle of 10 ms. This program synchronizes timing of the
display with the video raster of the computer on which it runs.
The participants’ task was to make a lexical decision on the string of uppercase letters
in each trial. If the string of letters was a word in English, they were to answer ‘yes,’ and
if the string of letters was not a word in English, they were to answer ‘no.’ All
participants were instructed to make answers as quickly as possible but not so quickly
that they would make mistakes. After each trial, a feedback message reading whether or
not the response was correct in addition to their reaction time. Participants selected their
‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers through the use of two response keys. They were able to move
through the trials of the experiment at their own pace by using a foot pedal to advance to
the next trial. The items were presented in a different order for each participant.
Results Before data analysis, participants with final error rates of 21% or higher
were excluded from the analysis as a standard procedure. However, in this experiment, no
participants had an error rate of 21% or higher. The data were analyzed using linear
mixed-effects modeling in R (Baayen, 2008; Baayen, Davidson, & Bates, 2008). This
was done as opposed to using the traditional method of analysis using F1 and F2 in bysubjects and by-items ANOVAs because linear mixed-effects modeling allows for the
analysis of subjects, items, and reaction times, without aggregating over subjects or
items. The data from any trials which included an error were excluded from the analysis.
Next, reaction times were transformed using a reciprocal transformation to correct for the
violation of normal distribution (i.e. the positive skew in the data) before a model was fit
95
to the data. In this experiment, priming was both a within-subjects and fixed effect factor.
Subjects and items were analyzed as random effect factors.
The simplest model including fixed effect factors and random factor intercepts for
subjects and items was applied to the data in this analysis. Next, an additional more
complex model was also applied to the data including random slopes for both subjects
and items. To evaluate whether or not the data justified the use of random slopes, a
likelihood ratio test was conducted. These random slopes analyses are only be reported if
they significantly improved the fit of the model (in fact, none did), and altered the
conclusions. The probability of the resulting t value was estimated for models without
random slopes using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure (MCMC) using 10,000
iterations.
The mean RTs for each condition of the word target trials are shown in Table 1.
The mixed-effects model analysis revealed significant priming effects in the derivational
condition (t = 2.91) and the repetition prime condition (t = 2.59).
Unrelated Prime
494 ms
Orthographic
Control Prime
489 ms
Derivational Prime
479 ms
Repetition Prime
480 ms
Table 1. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for native speakers
Discussion As predicted, the significant priming effect in the derivational
condition shows that morphological priming survives an intervenor. As masked
intervenor experiments (Forster 2009 & 2013) have demonstrated that intervenors tend to
wipe out form priming effects, it could be argued that this is due to the semantic
component that prime-target pairs such as celebration-CELEBRATE share. Additionally,
96
a significant repetition priming effect resulted from experiment 1, again, due to the
shared semantic component between prime and target. These results support the findings
of Forster (2009 & 2013) in that masked priming effects survive, but in a reduced effect
size.
3.4 Experiment 2 – Non-Native Speakers
Method & Results
Participants 48 non-native English-speaking students studying at a nearby intensive
English program in the United States participated in this experiment (mean age = 21; age
range = 18-32). All of the non-native English speakers were enrolled in high intermediate
English courses (identified as B1 level speakers on the Common European Framework
Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale) in their intensive English program. Placement in
these proficiency levels is determined by a student’s proficiency score on the
International Test of English Proficiency (iTEP). This assessment provides results about a
test taker’s general English abilities (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) and was
administered 4-6 weeks before data collection began. Within this group, four different L1
backgrounds were represented: Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese and Arabic. Table 2
contains the number of speakers for each L1 who were included in data analysis. For their
participation in the masked priming as well as the test of morphological awareness, all
non-native subjects were entered into a raffle to win one of fifteen $50 cash prizes.
Chinese
Arabic
Portuguese
Japanese
8
28
1
1
Table 2. Number of speakers in each L1 background by proficiency included in analyses
97
Materials and Design The same items used to test the native English speakers were
also used to test the non-native speakers. This consistency allowed the researcher to use
the results from the native English speakers as a true baseline for comparison. Likewise,
the same four sets of prime-target lists (files A, B, C, and D) each consisting of 4 blocks
with 15 targets each for a total of 60 targets were used in this experiment. Targets
remained the same on all four lists while items in the three prime conditions were
counterbalanced. In the non-native speaker group, 12 were tested on file A, 12 were
tested on file B, 12 were tested on file C, and 12 were tested on file D. Informed consent
was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Procedure The same procedure in experiment 1 was used for the non-native speaker
experiment.
Results Like the native speaker data, reaction times were transformed using a
reciprocal transformation to correct for the skewed distribution before a model was fit to
the data. Priming was both a within-subjects and fixed effect factor. Subjects and items
were analyzed as random effects. The non-native speaker data were analyzed using linear
mixed-effects modeling in R However, rather than using a 21% cutoff rate for errors, the
researchers felt justified in using a 31% error rate cutoff for the non-native speakers as
they would be more likely to make errors than the native speaker group. The data from 10
non-native speakers were rejected due to final error rates of 31% or greater.
As in the analysis of the native speaker data, the simplest model including fixed
effect factors and random factor intercepts for subjects and items was applied to the nonnative speaker data in the analysis. Random slopes were not used as analysis did not
justify the use of such a model. The mean RTs for each condition of the word target trials
98
are shown in Table 3. The mixed-effects model analysis did not reveal any significant
priming effects for the non-native speaker group (orthographic control: t =.38; derived: t
= 1.39; repetition: t = .56). Interestingly, mean reaction times across priming conditions
are mere milliseconds apart.
Unrelated Prime
Orthographic
Control Prime
Derived Prime
Repetition Prime
676 ms
674 ms
675 ms
673 ms
Table 3. Mean reaction times across conditions to word targets for non-native speakers
Discussion Though no significant priming effects were found for the non-native
speaker group, the results are still of interest when compared with those of the native
speaker group. The results of experiment 1 support earlier masked intervenor work
(Forster 2009 & 2013) which suggest that the effects capable of surviving an intervenor
have a shared semantic component between the prime and the target. Moreover, nearly
identical reaction times in the morphological and orthographic control conditions could
suggest that form overlap between the prime and target may be the driving force behind
L2 morphological priming effects, as no semantic effects survived the intervenor.
However, the result of no identity priming is a bit concerning and undermines the
strength of the aforementioned claim. It is possible that L2 speakers are not capable of
visually processing the prime when two prime-length stimuli are present. This will be
further discussed in the following section.
99
3.5 General Discussion
The goal of the present study was to explore the possibility that form overlap was
involved in significant morphological priming that occasionally turns up for more
proficient L2 learners. To serve as a baseline for comparison, a group of native English
speakers was tested first. The results of experiment 1 confirm the findings of earlier
masked intervenor experiments in that form effects are eliminated but semantic effects
survive, although in a reduced size. This was demonstrated through the significant
priming effects found in the repetition condition as well as the morphological condition.
This data supports this notion that identity priming effects are comprised of both a form
and a semantic component (Forster, 2009), and that these two components are involved in
morphological priming as well (Feldman et al., 2012).
However, the results of experiment 2, with high-intermediate L2 English learners,
are far less clear. The hypothesis that form overlap may be driving significant
morphological effects appears to be supported at first, until we take a look at the lack of
repetition priming. Repetition priming effects are the most notoriously reliable priming
effects to achieve, even with low proficiency L2 learners (e.g. Kraut, 2015). Thus, it is
troubling that no such effects were found in the present study.
One possibility is that this could point to a visual problem among L2 learners.
Perhaps L2 speakers with a developing L2 word recognition system are not able to
visually process the second prime-length stimulus. This phenomena has been,
anecdotally, reported before in the visual word recognition labs at the University of
Arizona. Significant repetition priming effects have been found in studies of masked
morphological priming conducted with L2 English learners of similar proficiency (e.g.
100
Silva & Clahsen, 2008). However, when presented with a masked intervenor paradigm,
any identity priming goes away. Adding a third word to the L2 lexical processor’s
workload maybe enough to set it over the edge such that no identity priming effects are
produced.
To test this hypothesis, a masked intervenor experiment could be conducted with
a similar group but modifying the experimental design so that the prime was adjacent to
the target. Forster (2009) found that the use of a masked intervenor between the prime
and the target results in significant identity and form priming of expected effect sizes
such that identity priming is stronger than form priming. An experimental design of this
sort conducted with intermediate L2 English learners could support this hypothesis if the
same normal priming patterns found by Forster (2009) with L1 speakers were not
replicated with the non-native group.
A second possibility for the lack of significant repetition priming could be that the
semantic component thought to be a part of repetition priming (Forster, 2009) may not be
present for L2 learners at this level of proficiency. Perhaps identity priming for such
groups may be driven by form overlap as well. In this way, the results of the present
experiment would not be surprising as no semantic effects survived the intervenor in any
of the conditions.
Although the results of this experiment were inconclusive in regards to the
research question tested, they still shed light on a possible area for further exploration
into the differences between lexical processing in L1 and L2.
101
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics
using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with
crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,
59, 390-412.
Beyersmann, E., Casalis, S., Ziegler, J. & Grainger, J. (2014). Language proficiency and
morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), p.
558-599.
Feldman, L., Kostic, A., Gvozdenovic, V., O’Connor, P., & Martin, F. (2012). Semantic
similarity influences early morphological priming in Serbian: A challenge to
form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 19, p. 668-676.
Forster, (2009). The intervenor effect in masked priming: How does masked priming
survive across an intervening word? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, p. 3649.
Forster, (2013). How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in
masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, p. 563-573.
Gor, K. & Jackson, S. (2013). Morphological decomposition and lexical access in a
native and second language: A nesting doll effect. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 28(7), 1065-1091.
102
Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word
recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384. DOI: 10.1016/0749596X(91)90042-I.
Kraut, (2015). The relationship between morphological awareness and morphological
decomposition among English language learners. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, p. 873-890.
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2
processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 11 (2), p.245-260.
Ullman, M. T. (2012). The declarative/procedural model. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 160-164).
Voga, M., Anastassiadis-Syméonidis, A. & Giraudo, H. (2014). Does morphology play a
role in L2 processing?: Two masked priming experiments with Greek speakers of
ESL. Lingvisticae Investigationes, Morphology and its interfaces: Syntax,
semantics and the lexicon, pp. 338-352(15).
103
Appendix A - Primes Across Four Conditions for Word and Non-Word Targets
Derived
Repetition
Unrelated Orthographic Intervenor
Control
Control
Target
contraction
amazing
equally
creation
holder
meaningful
hopeful
retirer
likely
rider
studying
attraction
contract
amaze
equal
create
hold
meaning
hope
retire
like
ride
study
attract
picture
television
sleep
flower
floor
cup
clock
painting
window
desk
dog
game
contrapt
amile
emeal
creoke
dold
melning
hape
ratore
loke
rade
stidy
attrapt
samp
onshance
puler
dopter
strole
shoge
dickod
samgle
stoce
setarn
tumgle
hortow
CONTRACT
AMAZE
EQUAL
CREATE
HOLD
MEANING
HOPE
RETIRE
LIKE
RIDE
STUDY
ATTRACT
surprising
basically
believer
sleepily
raining
cooking
dismissal
winner
hiker
hurtful
separation
blender
surprise
basic
believe
sleep
rain
cook
dismiss
win
hike
hurt
separate
blend
fruit
shop
stereo
agent
update
sweater
cabinet
buy
chair
imagine
inside
beautiful
staprise
bosic
beloave
sleap
roin
coak
desmass
wan
hoke
hort
saporate
blund
jaltet
ecrink
baze
scarex
blear
bunct
borthip
hegularty
mashard
freal
braip
licket
SURPRISE
BASIC
BELIEVE
SLEEPY
RAIN
COOK
DISMISS
WIN
HIKE
HURT
SEPARATE
BLEND
action
weekly
meeting
feeling
dreamer
wonderful
hateful
painting
relaxing
extremely
completely
restful
act
week
meet
feel
dream
wonder
hate
paint
relax
extreme
complete
rest
wood
double
kitchen
dinner
carpet
sky
tree
son
mouth
career
glasses
paste
ast
weik
ment
feil
droom
wolder
hite
poant
relox
extrime
complite
reast
beatous
antest
moarist
nulbet
goll
pulty
hanble
rottle
swillop
narch
darone
rin
ACT
WEEK
MEET
FEEL
DREAM
WONDER
HATE
PAINT
RELAX
EXTREME
COMPLETE
REST
clinical
clinic
pillow
clanic
debenue
CLINIC
104
retrieval
direction
original
touching
slowly
natural
national
logical
bridal
swimmer
dreadful
retrieve
direct
origin
touch
slow
nature
nation
logic
bride
swim
dread
surface
remote
hammer
fire
kill
grass
river
hill
sun
peace
story
retroave
diract
origon
toach
slowt
noture
nution
lagic
brode
swom
dreed
droelty
benisher
moarist
sherebe
staltered
wamority
unpertoinly
shabe
domcare
hortest
tacker
RETRIEVE
DIRECT
ORIGIN
TOUCH
SLOW
NATURE
NATION
LOGIC
BRIDE
SWIM
DREAD
selection
occasionally
wishful
singer
devotion
equation
removal
invention
powerful
regional
stressful
clearly
select
occasion
wish
sing
devote
equate
remove
invent
power
region
stress
clear
count
vote
sick
original
paper
everyone
secret
fish
lotion
progress
drive
search
selact
occusion
wosh
seng
devite
equote
remoave
invant
pawer
regoan
striss
cloar
altenpling
beo
ancortain
thace
mudicical
treich
strege
brosp
creethe
campine
spallor
lostare
SELECT
OCCASION
WISH
SING
DEVOTE
EQUATE
REMOVE
INVENT
POWER
REGION
STRESS
CLEAR
contriped
abamely
eheality
greamer
obcitiful
bealing
katiancy
gotirical
bampy
cadish
stidest
altranty
contripe
abame
eheal
greame
obcite
beal
katiant
gotire
bamp
cade
stide
altrant
donsible
zelchent
lonplute
bertrate
gembling
trutican
documert
embation
biblital
cluthong
aoboromy
athretic
cantrope
apime
egeel
groame
oppite
neel
kartrant
gatore
bimp
cude
stode
altrolt
bonsunt
crivany
muriour
pide
borten
gonfirled
sparlem
lunt
emt
sedover
harger
lanter
CONTRIPE
ABAME
EHEAL
GREAME
OBCITE
BEAL
KATIANT
GOTIRE
BAMP
CADE
STIDE
ALTRANT
staprisen
platty
paliever
sloapiness
moaroric
blatted
nirly
staprise
plat
palieve
sloapy
moaror
blat
nir
neribate
emoterate
granmit
palisher
cubardy
nelth
hoest
stoprase
plit
poleave
sleapy
mearer
blut
nar
brokerty
mostar
dealtion
campoter
biddle
vike
kep
STAPRISE
PLAT
PALIEVE
SLOAPY
MOAROR
BLAT
NIR
105
tiper
knoper
croser
anoker
filttest
tipe
knope
crose
anoke
filtt
fruze
fluik
crube
sreem
tunt
tope
snope
crise
anake
foltt
lote
frime
boag
coot
lomp
TIPE
KNOPE
CROSE
ANOKE
FILTT
reackly
morgiven
leamt
sackessful
regarater
repustful
fleppy
wrinky
galkish
tukely
pimer
bramly
reack
morgave
leam
sackess
regarate
repust
flep
wrink
galk
tuke
pime
bram
zlot
betrak
pruvit
progstil
sleaprom
thoraph
haftange
edinmar
rusliz
cublire
strin
splondet
roock
marsave
laim
sockess
regorite
rapost
flup
wronk
gulk
teek
pome
brum
yurk
frundle
wopple
gike
druke
cheed
shug
brong
slud
deen
grondle
shromp
REACK
MORGAVE
LEAM
SACKESS
REGARATE
REPUST
FLEP
WRINK
GALK
TUKE
PIME
BRAM
rolagish
pralty
skarmy
toathed
choocker
blapped
leaty
measer
continery
greemy
seartiness
krimater
rolag
pralt
skarm
toath
choock
blap
leat
mease
continer
greem
searty
krimate
proctian
lespasal
tenasive
debolten
sormuten
etan
vitropen
mertagot
wokindy
mahoufet
largiard
scotfry
ralug
pront
skilm
teath
chonk
blop
loat
moise
cantoner
griem
soarty
kromite
slup
cramish
tump
brool
snithy
miskle
fleek
rachet
ploat
nostic
wusby
slarp
ROLAG
PRALT
SKARM
TOATH
CHOOCK
BLAP
LEAT
MEASE
CONTINER
GREEM
SEARTY
KRIMATE
pramful
alked
srammy
gupiousity
echarstful
merigated
rokeish
enraked
weelchy
strags
klights
ramival
pram
alk
sram
gupious
echarst
merigate
roke
enrake
weelch
strag
klight
ramive
homdram
jelopran
crolotan
noritarn
mibasior
singulat
borriton
wanifold
sclupant
urkle
spail
chekiny
prum
aln
srim
gapius
echorsk
morigute
ruke
enroike
wealch
strog
kloat
rimove
wraggle
luper
thulk
darden
frick
rupple
purmp
cacken
rastle
kromp
boodle
totter
PRAM
ALK
SRAM
GUPIOUS
ECHARST
MERIGATE
ROKE
ENRAKE
WEELCH
STRAG
KLIGHT
RAMIVE
106
The Development of L2 Reading Skills: A Case Study from an Eight-Week Intensive
English Program Course
ABSTRACT
There seems to be a common assumption among universities that 7-16 weeks is
enough time for an adult second language learner to progress in their linguistic abilities.
However, we know from decades of L2 acquisition research that becoming proficient in
another language takes a substantial amount of time (e.g. Cummins, 1981; Demie, 2011).
Therefore, it’s not surprising that evidence has come to light showing that typical
university foreign language course lengths do not afford sufficient time for a language
learner to truly advance (e.g. Jochum, 2014).
Do these findings change when a learner is immersed in the L2? To answer this
question, I turn to a growing genre of language program in which comparatively little
research has been done: intensive English programs (IEPs). IEPs serve thousands of
international students across the country every year, preparing them for study in
American universities by teaching academic English. Like foreign language university
courses, term lengths of 7, 8, or 16 weeks are typical. However, such programs run under
immersion models, unlike most university foreign language classes.
The present study explores the development of L2 reading skills over the course of an
immersive eight-week session in an IEP. Data was collected from an intermediate-level
reading skills class (N=16) at multiple points throughout the course to measure growth in
vocabulary knowledge, lexical inferencing abilities, reading speed, reading
comprehension, and attitudes towards reading. Subjects turned in a weekly log of minutes
read at home as well. A series of t-tests reveal statistically significant changes in a
107
number of reading skills in the short two-month period. Moreover, a multiple regression
analysis showed that growth across several reading skills was found to significantly
predict total number of minutes read independently by each student, suggesting that L2
reading skill development and independent reading are linked. Results will be discussed
in terms of their implications for language teaching and program structures.
108
4.1 Introduction
There seems to be a common assumption among universities that 7-16 weeks is
enough time for an adult second language learner to progress in their linguistic abilities.
However, we know from decades of L2 acquisition research that becoming proficient in
another language takes a substantial amount of time (e.g. Cummins, 1981; Demie, 2011).
Therefore, it’s not surprising that evidence has come to light showing that typical
university foreign language course lengths do not afford sufficient time for a language
learner to truly advance.
4.2 Previous Literature
Oral Proficiency Jochum (2014) conducted one such study measuring oral
proficiency gains after a one-semester language course taken either at the students’ home
university in the U.S. or taken abroad in a country speaking the target language using the
Oral Proficiency Interview by Computer (OPIc) exam. At the start of the semester, results
of a one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the study-abroad
group and the at-home group in terms of their oral proficiency in the L2; all students in
both groups fell into the intermediate-low group. At the culmination of the semester, the
results of the post-OPIc test revealed a statistically significant difference in oral
proficiency between the study-abroad and at-home groups, with the study-abroad
students falling into the intermediate-mid proficiency level (on average) and the at-home
students remaining in the intermediate-low level. Moreover, the percentage of students
who improved one or more proficiency levels during the semester was greater in the
study-abroad group (78%) than the at-home group (44%). Strikingly similar results were
109
found by Hernandez (2010), Segalowitz & Freed (2004), and Freed, So and Lazar (2003)
as well.
Listening Effects of an immersive language learning context on listening skills has
been studied comparatively less than oral proficiency. A study carried out by Llanes and
Muñoz (2009) is one of the most recent. As part of a larger experiment exploring how
study abroad impacts oral and aural skills, the researchers had 22 L2 English students
listen to a series of pre-recorded native English speech samples. These speech samples
were accompanied with three images and the participants were to select the image that
best corresponded with whatever was said in the recording. When their participants left
the home country to study abroad in an English-speaking country for 3-4 weeks, they
were also asked to keep a journal of how much time they spent on each of the four
language skills. Upon returning home, the same listening comprehension task was
administered again. Results of the pre-and post-tests revealed that being immersed in the
target language, even for a short period of time, had a positive impact on listening
comprehension. Moreover, these gains were correlated with the amount of listening
practice time students reported in their journals. Dyson (1988) and Cublillos, Chieffo and
Fan (2008) yield similar conclusions.
Writing Skills According to Llanes & Muñoz (2013), the current literature on the
relationship between language immersion and writing skills development is rather
divided. “While authors such as Freed et al. (2003) have found that the immersion
context was not particularly beneficial for the improvement of writing skills, other
researchers have observed clear gains (Perez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2009; Sasaki, 2004,
2009)” (p.65).
110
In their own study, Llanes & Muñoz seek to investigate the possible influence of age
in the varied results on language immersion and improvement in writing skills. The
researchers compared the writing abilities of four groups: a group of children who studied
English abroad for 2-3 months, a group of children who studied English at home for the
same time period, a group of college-aged adults who studied English abroad for 2-3
months, and a group of college-aged adults who studied English at home. Before learning
began, the L2 writing abilities of all participants was measured by their response to an
essay prompt, “My life: past, present and future expectations,” a familiar topic for both
children and adults. This task was given again at the completion of the 2-3 month
learning period. The researchers scored all the pre- and post- writing samples in terms of
fluency, lexical and syntactic complexity, and accuracy. The results of paired t-tests show
statistically significant improvement for the children in the study-abroad group in written
lexical complexity and written accuracy. However, data analysis showed little effect of
L2 immersion on writing skills improvement on the aforementioned measures for the
adult groups. The only area of statistically significant improvement for the study-abroad
adult group was in lexical complexity. Llanes Muñoz attribute this to the possibility of
little L2 writing practice time for the study-abroad group, as the students’ self-reports of
how their time was spent indicated a larger portion of practice being devoted to speaking
and listening.
Reading Skills In terms of the effects of short-term immersion on language skills
development, reading skills is arguably the least studied. The results of the few studies
that do exist don’t yield clearly positive effects. Two of the most recent are Dewey
(2004) and Davidson (2010). The former explored differences in L2 reading
111
development among a group of L2 Japanese learners who either studied abroad for 11
weeks, or took a Japanese class in the U.S. for 9 weeks. A battery of reading assessments
including think-aloud protocols, vocabulary knowledge tests, and self-reports of their
abilities reveal almost no significant differences between the two groups. The only area in
which the two groups differed was in their self-reports of reading confidence, which had
increased more for the study-abroad group.
Davidson (2010) investigated the role of study-abroad length using data from more
than one thousand American college students who had studied abroad in Russia from
1994 through 2009. Data from participants was categorized into three groups in terms of
duration of study aboard: 2 months, 4 months, or 9 months. L2 reading proficiency in
Russian was measured using either assessments created by the Educational Testing
Service (ETS) or the American Councils’ Assessment and Curriculum Development
Division (A-CLASS) and “ranged from short passages designed to assess extraction of
factual information to larger passages designed to measure comprehension, analytic, and
inferential skills” (p. 10). Analysis of the data showed that, generally, L2 reading skills
did not improve significantly during study abroad, regardless of study length. The author
argues that this may be because the students had been well-prepared for reading in
Russian by their own American university foreign language programs before they studied
abroad in Russia.
4.3 The Present Study
With the results of the small body of literature on immersive learning contexts and
reading skills development being so unclear, more work is needed. To answer this call, I
turn to a growing genre of language program in which comparatively little research has
112
been done: intensive English programs (IEPs). IEPs serve thousands of international
students across the country every year, preparing them for study in American universities
by teaching academic English. Like foreign language university courses, term lengths of
7, 8, or 16 weeks are typical. However, such programs run under immersion models,
unlike most university foreign language classes.
The present study explores the development of L2 reading skills and attitudes towards
L2 reading over the course of an immersive eight-week session in an IEP. More
specifically, I investigate the following research questions:
(1) How much, if at all, do intermediate L2 English learners improve in their reading
skills (e.g. vocabulary breadth, lexical inferencing, reading speed, reading
comprehension) during one intensive English program session?
(2) How much, if at all, do intermediate L2 English learners change in their attitudes
towards reading in English during one intensive English program session?
(3) What is the relationship between improvement in these reading skills and attitudes
and the number of minutes read extensively outside of the classroom during the
session?
4.4 Methods
Participants The participants in this study were 16 intermediate-level students
enrolled in an intensive English program in Arizona (male = 13, female = 3; mean age =
20 years). Their proficiency level was determined by earning a score ranging from 2.53.0 on the International Test for English Proficiency (iTEP), which was administered two
weeks before the start of the session. Of this group, 15 were native speakers of Arabic
and 1 was a native speaker of Korean. Subjects were offered extra credit in their ESL
113
reading course in exchange for participation in the study. All gave informed consent prior
to data collection.
Materials & Design – Reading Speed & Comprehension The reading passages used
for the reading speed and comprehension instruments were taken from the National
Geographic Reading Explorer textbook series assessment package. This textbook series,
book 2 in particular, is used as a part of the reading curriculum for intermediate English
learners at the particular intensive English program where the subjects were recruited.
Before selecting passages for data collection instruments, the researcher checked with the
subjects’ instructors to be sure that this material had not been and would not be used in
class that session. After this, four passages were selected so that two could be
administered in form A and the other two on form B. All reading passages were matched
for length (mean word count = 343.25) and reading difficulty using the McAlpine
EFLAW Readability Score (McAlpine, 2005). This is a formula that measures the
difficulty of any given text for non-native speakers by using the following procedure: (1)
count the mini-words (short, common words of one, two or three letters); (2) count the
sentences; and (3) add the total number of words in the passage with the total of miniwords, then divide by the number of sentences. The resulting score can fall into one of
four categories: 1-20 very easy to understand, 21-25 quite easy to understand, 26-29 a
little difficult, 30+ very confusing. The four texts selected fell into the ‘quite easy to
understand’ category. The EFLAW value and total number of words for each passage can
be found in Table 1. The National Geographic Reading Explorer assessment package
provides comprehension questions along with each reading passage. Five of the ten
available questions were randomly selected to accompany each of the four passages for
114
data collection so that the task would not be too lengthy. An sample reading passage and
its corresponding comprehension questions can be found in Appendix A.
The reading passages and corresponding comprehension questions were administered
on a computer using Qualtrics. This survey platform has a time recorder built in as an
option so that a researcher can ascertain how long a participant spent reading a particular
item. By turning on this feature for the reading passages, reading time was able to be
recorded for each text in seconds. The two values recorded for each passage were
averaged to arrive at a pre- reading speed and again for the post- reading speed.
Form A – Passage 1
Form B – Passage 1
Form A - Passage 2
Form B – Passage 2
Words = 342
Words = 344
Words = 345
Words = 342
EFLAW: 21.33
EFLAW: 23.77
EFLAW = 24.29
EFLAW = 23
Table 1. EFLAW readability scores and total number of words for each reading
comprehension passage
Vocabulary & Lexical Inferencing The items for the test of lexical inferencing
abilities were inspired by and adapted from Cain et al. (2009) and Prior et al. (2014).
Each question consisted of a short narrative paragraph containing a new psuedoword (e.g.
wut) that was repeated throughout the passage. These items were bolded and underlined
so subjects would easily notice them. After each short paragraph, a multiple choice
question presented the subjects with four choices as to what they think the new
psuedoword might mean; subjects were instructed to choose the best answer. Five
narrative paragraph items comprised the lexical inferencing assessment form A and five
115
new narrative paragraphs were used for form B, resulting in a total of 10 items. Two
sample items from the lexical inferencing assessments can be found in Appendix B.
Nation’s (1990) vocabulary size test (2,000-10,000 levels) was used to assess
vocabulary breadth. Version 1 (Nation, 1990) was used for form A and Version 2
(Schmitt et al., 2001) was used for form B. These instruments assess passive vocabulary
knowledge based on words from five word-frequency levels: the first 2,000 words, 3,000
words, 5,000 words, the University word level (beyond 5,000 words) and 10,000 words
(Mokhtar et al., 2010). This is done by presenting the test taker with six possible words to
be matched with only three possible definitions. In this way, guessing is a little more
challenging as there is not a 1-to-1 relationship between possible vocabulary items and
possible answer choices. These tests are well-known to be highly reliable with an
estimation for Cronbach’s alpha above .9 for each section (mean α for version 1 = .929;
mean α for version 2 = .932). Sample items from form A can be found in Appendix C.
Reading Attitudes Questionnaire Lastly, the reading attitudes questionnaire was
constructed based on items from Braten et al. (2013) and Logan et al. (2011). Braten et
al.’s items, which were used to measure readers’ self-efficacy and perceived value of
reading skills in natural science texts, were modified to measure the same constructs for
L2 learners of English when reading English texts. The items measuring a reader’s
willingness to take on challenging texts as well as those measuring a reader’s curiosity (to
learn new things through text) were those used by Logan et al. (2011). These particular
constructs, self-efficacy, value, challenge, and curiosity, were chosen as they have been
shown to be an integral part of a reader’s intrinsic motivation (Wang & Guthrie 2004)
and can predict academic performance (Bandura, 1997). Each of the four constructs was
116
measured with 5 questions in which participants had to choose an answer on a Likert
scale with a rating of 1 being “Disagree a lot” and 4 being “Agree a lot.” Taken together,
this 20 item questionnaire was found to be internally reliable (α = .79). To construct
version B for post-testing, the language of the items on form A were worded negatively.
For example, “I like it when the teacher gives us a difficult book to read” was changed to
read “I don’t like it when the teacher gives us a difficult book to read” for form B. The
full reading attitudes questionnaire (form A) can be found in Appendix D.
Procedure During the first week of the session, participants were administered all
parts of the experiment across two days. On the first day, the reading speed and
comprehension test were administered with half the students taking form A and half
taking form B. This assessment was taken in a nearby computer lab at the university
campus, where each student sat at their own desktop computer. Participants were told that
they would be taking a reading comprehension assessment. It would consist of two
passages which each had 5 comprehension questions. They were instructed to read
carefully as they would not be able to go back to the passage after they had finished
reading. Note taking was not allowed and all were given 45 minutes to complete the task.
On the second day, the vocabulary breadth, lexical inferencing, and attitudes about
reading assessments were given; all subjects took form A. These assessments were
administered on paper in the subjects’ classroom. All subjects were given 45 minutes to
complete the instruments. The vocabulary breadth and lexical inferencing assessments
were scored as the total percentage of correct answers.
To collect post data, the same procedures were followed across a two day span in the
last week of the session. Students who took form B of the reading speed and
117
comprehension test were administered form A in the post-test and vice versa. Similarly,
all students took form B of the vocabulary breadth, lexical inferencing, and attitudes
about reading assessments in the final week.
Additionally, students were asked to submit a weekly reading log of total minutes
read independently at home. This was a variable of interest as amount of extensive
reading has been shown to have a positive impact on L2 vocabulary acquisition (e.g.
Krashen, 1993; Kweon & Kim, 2008), reading comprehension (e.g. Chen et al., 2013)
and reading attitude (e.g. Yamashita, 2013). This was collected by the researcher at the
start of each week to obtain data for the week prior. At the end of the session, the selfreported numbers were compiled to result in total number of minutes read independently
during the session.
Results Table 2 presents the number of total minutes read by each subject along with
their pre- and post-test scores on the reading speed and comprehension assessment as
well as the vocabulary breadth and lexical inferencing assessment. Table 3 presents the
pre- and post- self-ratings for all areas of the reading attitudes questionnaire by category.
To obtain the scores for each category of the reading attitudes questionnaire, the ratings
for each category’s four questions was averaged to obtain a mean score per category.
These are the values that appear in Table 2.
The pre- and post- test data collected at the first and last weeks of the course were
analyzed with a series of paired t-tests, one for each area of interest. On the whole, the ttests revealed statistically significant growth across a number of the reading skills and
reading attitude categories: vocabulary breadth (t=4.98, p<.001); willingness to read out
of curiosity (t=2.39; p<.05); perceived self-efficacy as an English reader (t=3.53, p<.01);
118
and reading speed (t=4.98, p<.001). Moreover, improvement that approached statistical
significance was revealed in a number of areas as well: lexical inferencing abilities
(t=1.84, p=.08); willingness to take on challenging texts (t=1.85, p=.08); and reading
comprehension (t=1.96; p=.06). Analysis of the data collected for students’ perceived
value of reading skills did not show a statistically significant change from the first to the
last week of the course. This is likely because the mean rating for the perceived value of
reading items was already quite high at 3.5 out of 4.
In order to determine any possible relationship between growth in reading skills and
attitudes towards reading, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with total number
of minutes read independently during the session as the dependent variable and change in
vocabulary breadth, lexical inferencing abilities, willingness to take on challenging texts,
willingness to read out of curiosity, perceived self-efficacy, perceived value of reading
skills, reading speed, and reading comprehension as independent variables. The
regression produced a model with a fit of r2 = .921. A number of the independent
variables turned out to be significant predictors of total minutes read independently
including change in reading speed (β=12.42, p<.001); change in reading comprehension
(β=8.32, p<.001); change in vocabulary breadth (β=9.63, p<.05); change in perceived
value of reading skills (β=14.36, p<.05); and change in curiosity (β=-26.5, p<.001).
Change in curiosity likely produced a negative result because students who tend to read
more are likely to report less change in willingness to read out of curiosity, as those selfratings were probably already high at the beginning. Change in lexical inferencing (β=.58), willingness to take on challenging texts (β=1.19) and perceived self-efficacy (β=.89)
were not found to be significant predictors in the model. Similar to change in curiosity,
119
change in lexical inferencing likely produced a negative result because students who tend
to read more are more likely to show less improvement in lexical inferencing because of
stronger abilities from the start.
Participant #
P1
Total
Minutes
Read
215
Pre- and PostVocabulary
Breadth
23% / 38%
Pre- and PostLexical
Inferencing
40% / 0%
Pre-and PostReading
Speed (in sec)
472 / 241
Pre- and PostReading
Comprehension
30% / 30%
P2
193
37% / 49%
60% / 60%
371 / 309
50% / 60%
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
130
340
455
750
260
37% / 47%
44% / 62%
26% / 49%
40% / 39%
21% / 39%
0% / 40%
0% / 100%
60% / 20%
80% / 80%
80% / 60%
550 / 509
667 / 385
486 / 156
492 / 173
416 / 242
90% / 80%
70% / 60%
50% / 40%
80% / 80%
40% / 40%
P8
510
27% / 37%
20% / 60%
523 / 231
70% / 70%
P9
690
39% / 49%
0% / 60%
456 / 272
70% / 80%
P10
428
47% / 54%
60% / 60%
285 / 228
40% / 80%
P11
270
11% / 11%
40% / 0%
521 / 279
30% / 40%
P12
105
18% / 21%
20% / 40%
385 / 331
50% / 60%
P13
200
18% / 32%
20% / 80%
591 / 462
40% / 80%
P14
315
24% / 41%
80% / 60%
346 / 154
60% / 60%
P15
230
39% / 49%
0% / 40%
412 / 300
30% / 40%
P16
425
57% / 78%
0% / 80%
400 / 309
60% / 80%
Table 2. Total minutes read and pre- and post- data for each subject on the vocabulary
breath, lexical inferencing, reading comprehension and reading speed assessments
Participant #
Pre- and PostChallenge Ratings
(out of 4)
Pre- and PostCuriosity Ratings
(out of 4)
Pre- and PostValue Ratings (out
of 4)
2.0 / 2.6
Pre-and PostSelf-Efficacy
Ratings (out of
4)
2.4 / 2.3
P1
2.2 / 2.0
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
2.8 / 3.2
2.2 / 2.2
2.8 / 2.8
1.0 / 2.2
3.2 / 3.4
2.6 / 2.2
3.6 / 3.4
3.4 / 3.4
2.8 / 3.8
2.6 / 3.4
3.8 / 3.6
3.4 / 3.8
3.2 / 3.6
2.75 / 3.0
3.0 / 3.0
3.0 / 3.4
3.0 / 3.8
3.25 / 3.6
3.8 / 3.6
3.8 / 3.6
4.0 / 4.0
3.0 / 3.2
4.0 / 4.0
3.8 / 3.8
P8
1.8 / 2.4
2.6 / 3.2
2.6 / 3.0
3.6 / 3.6
P9
3 / 3.2
3.4 / 3.8
3.2 / 3.4
3.4 / 3.4
P10
3.6 / 3.2
3.8 / 3.6
2.6 / 2.8
3.8 / 3.25
3.2 / 2.4
120
P11
3.4 / 3.2
3.6 / 3.2
2.8 / 2.8
3.4 / 3.6
P12
1.0 / 2.0
3.4 / 3.6
3.4 / 3.6
3.6 / 3.6
P13
2.4 / 2.8
2.8 / 3.4
2.8 / 3.0
3.8 / 3.2
P14
2.6 / 3.2
3.8 / 3.4
2.6 / 3.0
3.8 / 4.0
P15
3.4 / 3.0
2.8 / 3.4
2.0 / 3.0
3.0 / 3.8
P16
3.2 / 2.8
3.4 / 3.6
2.6 / 3.25
3.8 / 3.6
Table 3. Pre- and post- data for each subject on reading attitudes questionnaire by
construct
4.5 Discussion
Overall, the pattern of results indicate a largely positive picture for L2 reading
skills development during a short 8-week period of immersive language study. Returning
to the first and second research questions, we see statistically significant growth across
the group in vocabulary breadth (11.68% improvement), reading speed (36.93%),
willingness to read out of curiosity (12.4%), and the students’ perceived self-efficacy as
English readers (12.96%). Development was also seen in lexical inferencing abilities
(23.75%), willingness to take on challenging texts (24%), and reading comprehension
(13.75%), though growth in these areas did not reach statistical significance.
The relationship between improvement in L2 reading skills and attitudes and the
number of minutes read extensively outside of the classroom during the session turned
out to be a significantly predictive one in many areas: change in reading speed, change in
reading comprehension, change in vocabulary breadth and change in the perceived value
of reading. As aforementioned, change in curiosity and change in lexical inferencing
likely produced a negative relationship with total number of minutes read in the
regression model because students who tend to read more are more likely to show less
improvement in these areas due to stronger abilities from the start.
121
Taken together, the results of the pre-and post- tests along with the regression
analyses support the findings of Dewey (2004) in that the participants showed significant
improvement in their perceived self-efficacy as readers in their L2. However, the findings
of the present study are quite different from those reported by Davidson (2010). As
aforementioned, Davidson suggested that his participants were already well-prepared for
reading in the L2 before they left to study abroad and this may have resulted in no
significant improvement. This line of reasoning may explain the discrepancy between his
results and the present ones.
The majority of Davidson’s participants were Russian majors earning their degrees
from American universities where Russian literature courses are a common part of the
curriculum. Thus, as he suggests, those students had quite a lot of practice reading in
Russian before studying abroad. The participants in the present study are not majoring in
the target language. Most of them seek majors in engineering, pharmacy and business but
must improve their English first as a mean to these ends. Therefore, it could be said that
the participants in the present study may not have been as well-prepared to read in their
L2 (when compared to Davidson’s groups), resulting in more improvement. Clearly,
more work is needed in this area to reach any solid conclusions about the effects of
immersive language study on reading skills and attitudes.
4.6 Implications
Implications for this study lie in language pedagogy and program administration
contexts. For instance, because statistically significant growth was found in a number of
areas, this may suggest that 8 weeks is enough time for improvement in the L2, as long as
the student is learning in an immersive or study abroad context. To investigate this claim
122
further, a similar pre- and post- test design could be used using a standardized test of
English proficiency, such as the TOEFL test. Comparing the results from the pre- and
post-tests as well as those from the final test with the proficiency score entrance
requirements of the university would shed light on gains in terms of proficiency bands
per session as well as ultimate gains at the end of the program. This would give language
program administrators a better idea of their programs’ ability to adequately prepare their
international students with the level of academic English necessary to enter the
university.
Another take-away for language pedagogy contexts may be the way in which the
results could speak to curriculum for intensive English reading courses. During the 8week course, significant development was seen across several skills and constructs of
reading attitude, but a handful of other areas did not reach a significant level of growth.
Among these were reading comprehension and lexical inferencing abilities. Based on the
present evidence, it could be argued that these skills appear to take longer to develop and
thus, may require more practice and more presence in the curriculum for an intensive
ESL reading course.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Braten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, O. & Stromso, H. (2013). Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, p. 321-348.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. & Lemmon K. (2009). Individual differences in the inference of
of word meaning from context: The influence of reading comprehension,
vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. In Fletcher-Campbell, F., Soler,
123
J. & Reid, G. (Eds.), Approaching Difficulties in Literacy Development:
Assessment, Pedagogy, and Programmes (p. 52-72). London: SAGE
Publications.
Chen, C., Chen, S., Chen, S. & Wey, S. (2013). The effects of extensive reading via ebooks on tertiary level EFL students’ reading attitude, reading comprehension and
vocabulary. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), p.
303-312.
Cubillos, J. H., Chieffo, L., & Fan, C. (2008). The impact of short-term study abroad
programs on L2 listening comprehension skills. Foreign Language Annals, 41,
157–185.
Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in
Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 131-149.
Davidson, D. E. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data
from the Russian front. The Foreign Language Annals, 43, 6–26.
Demie, F. (2011). EAL: An empirical study of stages of English proficiency and
attainment. London: Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA.
Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in
intensive and domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 303–327.
Dyson, P. (1988). The year abroad. Report for the Central Bureau for Educational Visits
and Exchanges, Oxford University Language Teaching Centre.
Freed B., So, S., & Lazar, N. (2003). Language learning abroad: How do gains in written
fluency compare with gains in oral fluency in French as a second language?
124
ADFL Bulletin, 34(3), 34- 40. Available:
http://www.adfl.org/bulletin/V34N3/343034.htm.
Hernández, T. A. (2010). Promoting speaking proficiency through motivation and
interaction: The study abroad and classroom learning contexts. Foreign Language
Annals, 43(4):650–670.
Jochum, C. (2014). Measuring the effects of a semester abroad on students’ oral
proficiency gains: A comparison of at-home and study abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 24, p. 93-104.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Kweon S. & Kim, H. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in
extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), p. 191-215.
Llanes, A., & Muñoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System,
37, 353–365.
Llanes, A., & Muñoz, C. (2013). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System,
37, 353–365. Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults studying
abroad and at home. Language Learning, 63(1), p. 63-90.
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for
high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and
Individual Differences, 21, 124–128.
McAlpine, R. (2005). Global English for Global Business. Wellington, N.Z.: CC Press.
125
Mokhtar, A., Rawian, R., Yahaya, M., Abdullah, A., Mansor, M., Osman, M., Zakaria,
Z., Murat, A., Nayan, S. & Mohamed, A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge of adult
ESL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), p. 71-80.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, MA.
Perez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2009). The effect of study abroad on written ´
performance. Eurosla Yearbook, 9, 269–295.
Prior, A., Goldina, A., Shany, M., Geva, E. & Katzir, T. (2014). Lexical inference in L2:
predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading
comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, p. 14671484.
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student
writers. Language Learning, 54, 525–582.
Sasaki, M. (2009). Changes in English as a foreign language students’ writing over 3.5
years: A sociocognitive account. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), ´ Writing in foreign
language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 49–76). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour
of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), p. 5588.
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(2), 173-199.
126
Wang, J., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text
comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly,
39(2), 162−186.
Yamashita, J. (2013). Effects of extensive reading on reading attitudes in a foreign
language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), p. 248-263.
127
Appendix A- Sample Reading Passage with Comprehension Questions
Puerto Rican Cuisine
Puerto Rican cooks are experts in preparing a wide range of unusual and wonderful
dishes. This remarkable style of cooking comes from a combination of influences
imported from several different civilizations. These include the Taino Indians who were
native to the island, the Spanish who invaded Puerto Rico in the 1500s, and the Africans
who first came to the island as slaves. All three have left their mark on the development
of Puerto Rican cuisine. Here are two dishes often associated with this country that you
might like to try. In fact, you might even want to make them for yourself.
Leche Costrada
This is a sweet treat that people usually eat right after a meal. You need the following
things to make it: four cups milk, one-half cup sugar, one-half teaspoon salt, four eggs,
and some vanilla to give it a nice taste. Start the cooking process by combining the milk,
sugar, and salt. Then heat the mixture until it reaches the boiling point (100C). Allow
this liquid to cool a little. Then mix the eggs together and combine them with the milk
and sugar base. Make sure the eggs and milk mix together completely. Add the vanilla.
Then put the mixture into a glass dish. Put it in the oven and bake it for approximately 30
minutes at 180C, until it is brown on top. Allow it to cool before serving.
Platanos
Platanos look a lot like very large bananas. Although initially they are hard and green, if
you keep them for a few days, they will begin to turn yellow and become a little sweeter.
Green or yellow, they are usually served as a side dish, and they add a lot to a meal.
However, it's important to know that platanos must be cooked before eating. The usual
way to prepare them is to boil them with the skin on for 15 to 20 minutes. When done,
they should be slightly hard at the center. They are often served with olive oil along with
the rest of the meal.
What is the passage mainly about?
a. the history of Puerto Rican cuisine
b. the importance of bananas in Puerto Rican cooking
c. the Spanish influence on Puerto Rican cuisine
d. two special Puerto Rican dishes
The writer of this story ____.
a. is from Spain
b. is a Taino Indian
c. likes Puerto Rican food
d. doesn't know how to cook
128
What is the main idea of paragraph 1?
a. Several civilizations helped shape Puerto Rican cuisine.
b. Puerto Rican cuisine is very special.
c. The Spanish invasion changed the cuisine of Puerto Rico.
d. More people should try making Puerto Rican dishes.
TRUE / FALSE
It takes two eggs to make leche costrada.
Platanos are cooked for about 30 minutes.
129
Appendix B- Sample Items from the Lexical Inferencing Assessment
Lucy was taking her dog, Ben, to the park. First she had to find Ben’s wut. Her dad
suggested taking a football, but that was not quite right. Their football was far too big to
play catch with, and it had lost its bounce. She searched all the rooms in the house, even
the kitchen. She never found her dog’s wut! Lucy decided that she had to be more
organized in the future. (adapted from Cain et al., 2004)
What do you think the word wut might mean?
(a) Food
(b) Ball
(c) House
(d) Leash
Everyone says that 13-year-old Alan is a “born actor.” When a theater department was
opened at the performing arts school, it was clear that Alan would be the first to sign up
for it. For the first role he played, Alan had to find a shofter. Alan asked friends and
neighbors if any of them had a shofter and explained that he needed one because he was
playing the role of an old man who has trouble keeping stable while walking. When he
did not find what he was looking for, Alan went to the retirement home near his house
and asked if they could help him out. The retirement home staff was happy to help him
and promised to come see the play. (adapted from Prior et al., 2014)
What do you think the word shofter might mean?
(a) Medicine
(b) Chair
(c) Cane
(d) Glasses
130
Appendix C- Sample Items from Form A of the Vocabulary Breadth Assessment
Vocabulary Post-Test
2000 level
1. apply
1. original
2. private
complete
2. elect
3. royal
first
3. jump
4. slow
not public
5. sorry
6. total
4. manufacture
choose by
voting
become like
water
make
5. melt
6. threaten
1. accident
1. blame
2. hide
3. hit
4. invite
5. pour
6. spoil
keep away
from sight
have a bad
effect on
something
ask
2. choice
3. debt
4. fortune
having a
high opinion
of yourself
something
you must
pay
loud, deep
sound
5. pride
6. roar
1. basket
2. crop
3. flesh
4. salary
5. temperature
6. thread
money paid 1. birth
regularly for 2. dust
doing a job
3. operation
heat
4. row
meat
5. sport
6. victory
being born
game
winning
131
Appendix D- Full Reading Attitudes Questionnaire (Form A)
Name:
How Do You Feel about Reading?
Challenge
If a book is interesting, I don't care how difficult it is to read.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I like it when the teacher gives us a difficult book to read.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I usually learn difficult things by reading.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
I like it when I have to work out the difficult words in books.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I don’t like having an easy book to read rather than a difficult one.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Curiosity
I like reading so that I can learn more about things.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
If the teacher discusses something interesting, I might read more about it.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I read about my hobbies to learn more about them.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
There are many topics that I am interested in reading about.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
132
I am interested in learning new things from books.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Self-Efficacy
It is easy for me to understand the content of my English reading textbook.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I probably won’t have problems understanding much of what’s in the textbooks for this
class.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I know that I will receive good grades in reading class because I understand what I read.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I understand what I read in English well.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
I don’t easily lose interest when English texts are difficult to understand.
Disagree a lot
Value
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Even though it can be difficult to understand the content of the textbooks, I think it is
important to understand it.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Good reading comprehension is useful for university studies in English.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
I really like to understand the texts that I read in English.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
Good comprehension of English texts is useful to get a good job.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
133
It is particularly fun to read texts when I understand them well.
Disagree a lot
Disagree a little
Agree a little
Agree a lot
134
Conclusion
5.1 Conclusion
The aim of the collection of studies in this dissertation is to add to the growing
body of literature detailing the processes of L2 reading and improvement in L2 reading
skills. Articles 1 and 2 explored the topic of online processing of L2 morphologically
complex words. Article 3 shed light on the effects of L2 extensive reading and the ways
in which it may influence the development of second language reading skills. Broadly,
the studies in this dissertation addressed the following research questions:
Articles 1 & 2
(1) How do L2 readers process morphologically complex words? Do they
decompose morphologically complex words into their constituents (e.g.
CELEBRATION  celebrate & -tion) for recognition or process them in whole
form?
(2) Is there a connection between their knowledge of morphology (e.g. as
demonstrated by a paper and pencil test of morphological awareness) and their
ability to use it during online word recognition?
(3) How does L2 proficiency modulate these processes?
Article 3
(4) How much do L2 reading skills improve during a short period of immersive
study?
This concluding chapter will review the results of each study as they pertain to the
research questions. The implications of the results for the field of L2 reading will be
discussed subsequently.
135
5.2 How do L2 readers process morphologically complex words?
Articles 1 and 2 of this dissertation produced results elucidating how L2 readers
process morphologically complex words during visual word recognition. In Article 1, a
group of native English speakers and 2 groups of non-native English speakers at varying
levels of proficiency participated in a masked priming experiment. The results of the
experiments were quite clear: native English speakers show evidence of decomposing
morphologically complex words for visual word recognition while the non-native groups
did not. This evidence came in the form of significant priming effects, or lack thereof, in
the morphological condition.
A third experiment was carried out as an addendum to article 1 with a third
superior-level group of non-native English speakers. Additionally, the morphological
condition was split into derived and inflected conditions to be able to address the debate
of single- vs. dual-route systems for morphological processing. An orthographic control
condition was added as well to see if any priming in the two morphological conditions
differed at all from any orthographic priming.
At first glance, significant priming effects in both the derived and inflected
conditions appeared to suggest that late and early learners of English at a superior level of
proficiency decompose morphologically complex words for recognition. However,
subsequent analyses comparing the significant priming effects in the orthographic control
conditions with the morphological conditions gave reason for caution. The data was
analyzed first by whole group and then by early vs. late learners. Regardless of the data
grouping, the pattern of results was still the same: derived and inflected priming effects
did not statistically differ from those found in the orthographic control condition. This
136
suggests that the significant priming effects in the derived and inflected conditions may
be caused by form overlap between the prime and the target.
The experiments in article 2 were designed to address the question of form
overlap driving any L2 morphological priming effects. To do this, a masked intervenor
paradigm was used as this technique has been shown to eliminate form priming but retain
identity and semantic priming effects (Forster 2009 & 2013). Unlike the group of native
English speakers who participated in these experiments, no significant priming effects
were found for the non-native speaker group. However, nearly identical reaction times in
the morphological and orthographic control conditions could suggest that form overlap
between the prime and target may be the driving force behind L2 morphological priming
effects, as no semantic effects survived the intervenor. Unfortunately, no significant
identity priming effects were found for the L2 group which weakens this hypothesis.
5.3 Is there a connection between knowledge of L2 morphology and the ability to use
it during online word recognition?
“Morphological awareness contributes to word reading by facilitating
segmentation of morphologically complex words and the retrieval and retention of these
words” (p. 918, Zhang, 2013). For this reason, article 1 explored the relationship between
L2 learners’ morphological awareness and any evidence of decomposing
morphologically complex words during recognition. The L2 learners in the two lower
proficiency groups did not show signs of morphological decomposition in that no
significant priming effects were found in the morphological condition. However, a
difference between the two emerged in the mean scores on the paper and pencil test of
morphological awareness with the intermediate group scoring 68% on average and the
137
advanced group scoring 88% on average. This data suggests that learners at this level of
proficiency are improving in their morphological awareness, but still aren’t able to
deploy it in online word recognition.
To this end, a third experiment with superior-level non-native English speakers
was done. The results from this group patterned quite differently from the first two. The
superior group produced significant priming effects in both morphological conditions and
scored 100% on the test of morphological awareness. These results support the notion
that (1) L2 morphological awareness skills continue to improve with gains in proficiency
and (2) L2 learners are able to deploy their morphological awareness to recognize words
during reading over time.
5.4 How does L2 proficiency modulate these processes?
The series of experiments in article 1 and its addendum address the influence of
proficiency in morphological processing. Non-native English speakers at intermediate,
advanced, and superior levels of proficiency, levels A2, B2 and C2 on the CEFR scale,
participated in the masked priming experiment and test of morphological awareness. The
pattern of results across the 3 groups suggest that the ability to decompose
morphologically complex words for recognition is a process that develops over time with
gains in proficiency. Additionally, this ability doesn’t appear to emerge until a very high
level of L2 proficiency is obtained, as evidenced by significant morphological priming
effects found only in the superior group. This interpretation of the data is in concordance
with that of Gor & Jackson (2013) who found significant L2 morphological priming
effects in highly proficient non-native speakers.
138
The mean score on the test of morphological awareness from article 1 also
increased with proficiency. The intermediate learners scored 68% on average, the
advanced 88% and the superior 100%. From the results of article 1, one can conclude that
L2 proficiency is an important moderator of L2 morphological decomposition abilities
and morphological awareness.
5.5 How much do L2 reading skills improve during a short period of immersive
study?
To date, little work has been done on how a short period of immersive L2 study
affects the development of reading skills. The third article of this dissertation measured
the amount of improvement seen in L2 vocabulary breadth, reading speed, lexical
inferencing and reading comprehension after a short 8-week period of immersive English
study. Additional data was collected on change in reading attitude and the influence of
extensive reading practices as a moderator in improvement.
On the whole, the results from article 3 are positive. Data analyses revealed
significant growth in vocabulary breadth and reading speed, and many constructs of
reading attitude, such as willingness to read out of and perceived self-efficacy as an
English reader. Improvement was also found in lexical inferencing abilities, willingness
to take on challenging texts, and reading comprehension. However, development in these
areas did not reach a level of statistical significance. Number of minutes extensively read
outside the classroom turned out to be a significant predictor of many L2 reading skills
and attitude constructs, such as change in reading speed, change in reading
comprehension, change in vocabulary breadth and change in the perceived value of
reading.
139
The findings of this study are in agreement with previous work (Dewey, 2004) on
L2 reading self-efficacy but differ from other studies (Davidson 2010) of reading skills
development during a short immersive period of study. Because so little research has
been done one the development of L2 reading skills during immersive language study,
more work is needed before any solid claims are made.
5.6 Implications for the Field
The studies in this dissertation supplement what we know about L2
morphological processing and reading skills. A combination of psycholinguistic tasks and
paper and pencil measures were used so that the findings could have implications in both
psycholinguistic and applied areas of L2 reading. To conclude, the implications for the
psycholinguistics of reading will be discussed followed by implications for L2 pedagogy
and language program structure.
Implications for the Psycholinguistics of L2 Reading
One of the aims of the experiments in this dissertation is to provide evidence for
or against (1) single- or dual-route models of morphological processing and (2) Ullman’s
(2012) declarative/procedural model of L2 morphological processing in hopes of adding
to the growing picture of the processing of morphologically complex words for latelearning non-native speakers.
The experiments in article 1 and its addendum yield results applicable to the
aforementioned theories. Both derived and inflected conditions were included in the third
experiment of article 1 to address issues of single- vs. dual-route processing of
morphologically complex words. Among the superior learners, significant priming effects
were found in both conditions and there was never a statistically significant difference
140
between the two regardless of how the data was analyzed (e.g. whole group or by early
vs. late learners). This evidence supports dual-route models (e.g. Taft & Forster, 1975;
Clahsen, 1999; Pinker and Ullman, 2002) of morphological processing which state that
rule-based decomposition happens in order to recognize morphologically complex words.
The results of experiment 3 support rule-based decomposition for both inflected and
derived items, as no irregular items (e.g. kept – KEEP vs. talked – TALK) were used.
Moreover, these experiments provide support for Ullman’s declarative/procedural
model (2012) in that, over time, late learners can decompose morphologically complex
words as native speakers do. However, it appears that this may be because they rely on
form relationships between the prime and the target rather than morphological
knowledge. Further investigation is needed before making this claim as the subject pool
for this third experiment was quite small (N=15).
Implications for L2 Pedagogy and Language Program Structure
Language Pedagogy Reading is a highly crucial skill for students, whether
domestic or international, to experience academic success at an American university. The
data from the experiments in article 1 suggest that morphological decomposition leads to
faster word recognition time and thus increased reading speed. Therefore, it follows that
more explicit teaching of English morphological word families and the way in which
morphological constituents come together to form complex words may be beneficial in
helping L2 learners of English to improve their reading speed in the target language.
The findings of the addendum study in article 1 show that L2 morphological
awareness eventually lends itself to automatic decomposition of words during
recognition. Because no evidence was found for decomposition abilities was only found
141
among the superior proficiency group, one can conclude that this automatization takes
quite a while to fully develop. Therefore, it may be sound practice for instruction of L2
morphology to continue past the traditional beginning and intermediate levels of
instruction. Perhaps continuing to heighten students’ L2 morphological awareness in
increasing challenging ways throughout a program’s curriculum could foster
decomposition abilities quicker.
Language Program Structure The data from article 3 show that students learning
an L2 in an immersive environment can experience significant growth in their linguistic
skills during a short two-month period. This bodes well for the structure of many
intensive English programs which tend to have immersive sessions of 7-10 weeks.
However, the question of ultimate attainment in L2 at the end of such programs remains
to be answered. The findings of the third study suggest that students improve
significantly in many areas of their reading skills and attitudes, but at the final level of
study, have they truly reached a proficiency satisfactory to experience success at the
university?
Further research could build on the results of article 3 by investigating linguistic skills
development over an entire immersive program. If students were given the same
standardized proficiency test at the beginning and end of an intensive English program,
the results could be compared against the language score requirements of the target
university. This would give language program administrators a better idea of their
programs’ ability to adequately prepare their international students with the level of
academic English necessary to enter the university.
142
References
Alexander, P., Kulikowich, J. & Schulze, S. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge,
domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition.
Learning and Individual Differences, 6(4), p. 379-397.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics
using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with
crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,
59, 390-412.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barto-Sisamout, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J. & Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer effects in bilingual
sentence processing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 16, 1-26.
Besner, D., & Humphreys, G. (Eds.). (2009). Basic processes in reading: Visual word
recognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Beyersmann, E., Casalis, S., Ziegler, J. & Grainger, J. (2014). Language proficiency and
morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), p.
558-599.
Brantmeier, C. (2002). The effects of passage content on second language reading
comprehension by gender across instruction levels. In J. Hammadou Sullivan
(Ed.), Research in second language learning: Literacy and the second language
learner (pp. 149–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
143
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage content and
comprehension in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15,
1–27.
Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., & McDaniel, M. (2011). The effects of embedded and
elaborative interrogation questions on reading comprehension with advanced
second language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 238–247.
Brantmeier, C., Sullivan, J. & Strube, M. (2014). Toward independent L2 readers: Effects
of text adjuncts, subject knowledge, L1 reading, and L2 proficiency. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 26(2), p. 34-53.
Braten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, O. & Stromso, H. (2013). Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, p. 321-348.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A
natural history of one program for enhancing learning. (Technical Report No.
334), Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. & Lemmon K. (2009). Individual differences in the inference of
of word meaning from context: The influence of reading comprehension,
vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. In Fletcher-Campbell, F., Soler,
J. & Reid, G. (Eds.), Approaching Difficulties in Literacy Development:
Assessment, Pedagogy, and Programmes (p. 52-72). London: SAGE
Publications.
Carlisle, J. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth,
sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247-266.
144
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically
complex words:Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190.
Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 18, 441–469. doi: 10.2307/3586714.
Carrell, P. L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schemata in second language
comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87–112. doi: 10.1111/j.14671770.1984.tb01005.x.
Chen, C., Chen, S., Chen, S. & Wey, S. (2013). The effects of extensive reading via ebooks on tertiary level EFL students’ reading attitude, reading comprehension and
vocabulary. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), p.
303-312.
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of
German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H. & E. Fleischhauer 2014. Morphological priming in child German. Journal of
Child Language 41: 1305-1333.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cubillos, J. H., Chieffo, L., & Fan, C. (2008). The impact of short-term study abroad
programs on L2 listening comprehension skills. Foreign Language Annals, 41,
157–185.
145
Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in
Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 131-149.
Davidson, D. E. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data
from the Russian front. The Foreign Language Annals, 43, 6–26.
Davis, C. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological
Review, 117, 713-758.
Deacon, S. H., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. B. (2007). Crossover: The role of
morphological awareness in French immersion children’s reading. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 732–746.
Del Maso, S. & Giraudo, H. (2014). Morphological processing in L2 Italian: Evidence
from a masked priming study. Lingvisticae Investigationes: Morphology and its
interfaces Syntax, semantics and the lexicon, 37 (2), p.1-16.
Demie, F. (2011). EAL: An empirical study of stages of English proficiency and
attainment. London: Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA.
Dewaele, J. M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 623–646). Bingley, England: Emerald Insight.
Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in
intensive and domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 303–327.
Diependaele, K., Dun˜abeitia, J. A., Morris, J., & Keuleers, E. (2011). Fast
morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of
Memory and Language, 64(4), 344358. doi:10.1016/ j.jml.2011.01.003.
146
Dyson, P. (1988). The year abroad. Report for the Central Bureau for Educational Visits
and Exchanges, Oxford University Language Teaching Centre.
Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). Early
morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morphoorthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 684- 691.
Feldman, L., Kostic, A., Gvozdenovic, V., O’Connor, P., & Martin, F. (2012). Semantic
similarity influences early morphological priming in Serbian: A challenge to
form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 19, p. 668-676.
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2004). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second
language sentence processing. Poster presented at AMLaP, Aix-en-Provence,
September 2004.
Forster, K. (2009). The intervenor effect in masked priming: How does masked priming
survive across an intervening word? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, p. 3649.
Forster, K. (2013). How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in
masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, p. 563-573.
Freed B., So, S., & Lazar, N. (2003). Language learning abroad: How do gains in written
fluency compare with gains in oral fluency in French as a second language?
ADFL Bulletin, 34(3), 34- 40. Available:
http://www.adfl.org/bulletin/V34N3/343034.htm.
147
Frost, R., Siegelman, N., Narkiss, A. & Afek, L. (2013). What Predicts Successful
Literacy Acquisition in a Second Language? Psychological Science, 24(7), p.
1243-1252.
Goldfield, J. (2010). Comparison of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Dr. Joel Goldfield. Retrieved
December 8, 2013, http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jgoldfield/ACTFLCEFRcomparisons09-10.pdf.
Goodwin, A., Huggins, A., Carlo, M., August, D. & Calderon, M. (2013). Minding
morphology: How morphological awareness relates to reading for English
language learners. Reading and Writing, 26, 1387-1415.
Gor, K., & Cook, S. (2010). Non-native processing of verbal morphology: In search of
regularity. Language Learning, 60(1), 88-126. doi:10.1111/j.14679922.2009.00552.x.
Gor, K. & Jackson, S. (2013). Morphological decomposition and lexical access in a
native and second language: A nesting doll effect. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 28(7), 1065-1091.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current Developments in Second Language Reading Research.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-306.
Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word
recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384. DOI: 10.1016/0749596X(91)90042-I.
148
Hahne, A., M¨uller, J., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological processing in a second
language: Behavioral and ERP evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18.
Hasan, K. (2013). Impacts of reading metacognitive strategies and reading attitudes on
school success. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), p.312-317.
Hernández, T. A. (2010). Promoting speaking proficiency through motivation and
interaction: The study abroad and classroom learning contexts. Foreign Language
Annals, 43(4):650–670.
Hu, H. M. & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading
comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, p. 403-429.
Jackson, C. & Dussias, P. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2
sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), p. 65-82.
Jafari, D. (2012). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension enhancement in
Iranian intermediate EFL setting. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), p.114.
Jared, D. (2015). Literacy and Literacy Development in Bilinguals. In A. Pollatsek & R.
Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 165-185). London,
England: Oxford Psychology.
Jeon, E. & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A metaanalysis. Language Learning, 64(1), p. 160-212.
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.
149
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language
learning. Language Learning, 57 (1), p. 1-33.
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K. & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency
and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61(3), 940-967.
Jochum, C. (2014). Measuring the effects of a semester abroad on students’ oral
proficiency gains: A comparison of at-home and study abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 24, p. 93-104.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on Reading Comprehension of Building Background
Knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), p. 503-516.
Kamil, M., Pearson, D., Moje, E. & Afflerbach, P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 4). New York: Routledge.
Kempley, S. & Morton, J. (1982). The effects of irregularly related words in auditory
word recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 441-454.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphological awareness
in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 783–804.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012c). Direct and indirect roles of morphological
awareness in the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish,
Filipino, and Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), p. 1170-1204.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Affective variables and Japanese L2 reading ability. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 18(1), p. 55-71.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
150
Kraut, (2015). The relationship between morphological awareness and morphological
decomposition among English language learners. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, p. 873-890.
Kuo, L.-J.,&Anderson, R. C. (2006).Morphological awareness and learning to read: A
cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.
Kweon S. & Kim, H. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in
extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), p. 191-215.
Landers, A., & Coch, D. (2009). Behavioral expression of morphological processing and
its relation to reading. Poster presented at the 2009 Psychological and Brain
Sciences Honors Poster Symposium, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New
Hampshire, USA.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. A. (1991). An introduction to second language
acquisition research. New York: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1989b).What percentage of lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren
& M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking
machines (pp. 316-323).London, England: Multilingual Matters.
Llanes, A., & Muñoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System,
37, 353–365.
Llanes, A., & Muñoz, C. (2013). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System,
37, 353–365. Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults studying
abroad and at home. Language Learning, 63(1), p. 63-90.
151
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for
high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and
Individual Differences, 21, 124–128.
Longtin, M-C., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word
processing, Journal of Memory and Language, 53:1, 26-41.
Marinis, T.,Roberts, L., Felser,C.,& Clahsen, H. (2005).Gaps in second language
sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.
Marinova-Todd, S., Siegel, L. & Mazabel, S. (2013). The Association Between
Morphological Awareness and Literacy in English Language Learners From
Different Language Backgrounds. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1), 93-107.
Martinez, R. & Murphy, V. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second
language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), p. 267-290.
Masrai, A. & Milton, J. (2011). Investigating the relationship between the morphological
processing of regular and irregular words and L2 vocabulary acquisition.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(4), p. 192199.
McAlpine, R. (2005). Global English for Global Business. Wellington, N.Z.: CC Press.
McBride-Chang, C., Tardif, T., Cho, J.-R., Shu, H., Fletcher, P., Stokers, S. F., et al.
(2008). What’s in a word? Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge
in three languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 437–462.
McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections:
What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465–472.
152
Mokhtar, A., Rawian, R., Yahaya, M., Abdullah, A., Mansor, M., Osman, M., Zakaria,
Z., Murat, A., Nayan, S. & Mohamed, A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge of adult
ESL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), p. 71-80.
Murrell, G. & Morton, A. (1974). Word recognition and morphemic structures. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 102, 963-968.
Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond
phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.
Nakanishi, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of extensive reading research. TESOL Quarterly,
49(1), p. 6-37.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, MA.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, p. 1-9.
Odofu, G. & Adedipe, T. (2011). Assessing ESL students' awareness and application of
metacognitive strategies in comprehending academic materials. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(5), p. 343-346.
Perez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2009). The effect of study abroad on written ´
performance. Eurosla Yearbook, 9, 269–295.
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456–463.
Prior, A., Goldina, A., Shany, M., Geva, E. & Katzir, T. (2014). Lexical inference in L2:
predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading
153
comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, p. 14671484.
Ramirez, G., Esther Geva, X., & Luo, Y. (2011). Morphological awareness and word
reading in English language learners: Evidence from Spanish- and Chinesespeaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 601-618.
Rastle,K., Davis, M.H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in mybrother’s brothel:
morphoorthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review 11, 1090–1098.
Rehak, K.M. & Juffs, A. (2011). Native and non-native processing of morphologically
complex English words: Testing the influence of derivational prefixes. In G.
Granena et al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2010 Second Language
Research Forum, (pp. 125-142). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Rojstaczer, S. & Healy, C. (2010). Grading in American colleges and universities.
Teachers College Record, http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 15928, Date
Accessed: 8/2/2015 1:48:04 PM.
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student
writers. Language Learning, 54, 525–582.
Sasaki, M. (2009). Changes in English as a foreign language students’ writing over 3.5
years: A sociocognitive account. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), ´ Writing in foreign
language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 49–76). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
154
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour
of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), p. 5588.
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(2), 173-199.
Seidenberg, M. S. & Gonnerman, L. M (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as
the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.
Shany, M. & Biemiller, A. (2009). Individual differences in reading comprehension gains
from assisted reading practice: Pre-existing conditions, vocabulary acquisition,
and amounts of practice. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23,
p. 1071-1083.
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2
processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 11 (2), p.245-260.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L. & Humbach, N. (2012). Relationships among L1
print exposure and early L1 literacy skills, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(7), p. 1599-1634.
Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., Hernon, W. P. & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for
morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
18, 399–412.
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory &
Cognition, 7, 263-272.
155
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(4), 745-765.
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647.
The University of Oregon. (2010). What factors are important for an effective K-8
program? Eugene, Oregon: Center for Applied Second Language Studies.
Ullman, M. T. (2012). The declarative/procedural model. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 160-164).
Verhoeven, L., Leeuwe, J. & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading
development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading,
15(1), p. 8-25.
Voga, M., Anastassiadis-Syméonidis, A. & Giraudo, H. (2014). Does morphology play a
role in L2 processing?: Two masked priming experiments with Greek speakers of
ESL. Lingvisticae Investigationes, Morphology and its interfaces: Syntax,
semantics and the lexicon, pp. 338-352(15).
Wang, J., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text
comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly,
39(2), 162−186.
White, E. (2014, August 13). CESL Placement Test Data. Lecture presented at CESL
Faculty In-Service 2014 in University of Arizona, Tucson.
156
Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (2011). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structurebased parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 1-38.
Yamashita, J. (2013). Effects of extensive reading on reading attitudes in a foreign
language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), p. 248-263.
Zhang, D. (2013). Linguistic distance effect on cross-linguistic transfer of morphological
awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, p. 917-942.
157

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project