Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., & Skalicky, S. (2018). Effects of lexical features, textual properties, and individual differences on word processing times during second language reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31(5), pp. 1155-1180.
Word processing, or the act of understanding words, is a necessary component of reading comprehension. This article investigates the triangulation of “lexical features, individual differences, and textual properties” in L2 word processing while reading (p. 1156). This research responds to previous literature that focuses on differences in L1 and L2 processing and follows input-theory principles, which suggest that “L2 learners who are exposed to greater L2 input tend to process words and word-related information more quickly than those with limited L2 exposure” (p. 1161). The authors of this study focused on the following research question: “How do lexical features, textual properties, and individual differences along with their interactions affect word processing times during L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking EFL learners?” (p. 1162).
48 L2 English learners (L1: Spanish), with ages ranging from 15 to 24, participated in this study. All participants were enrolled at the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. 27 reading passages were used, which were borrowed from previous research by Crossley et. al., (2014). The authors describe the readings as follows: “The 27 passages were taken from nine news texts with each news text having three different versions (i.e., an authentic text, a text simplified to the intermediate level, and a text simplified to the beginning level) that had been modified by expert material designers to simplify their linguistic features (in terms of text cohesion, lexical sophistication, and syntactic complexity)” (p. 1163). These texts, of varying theme, were presented randomly to the participants. In order to calculate the lexical features for each word, the researchers used the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication 2.0 (TAALES 2.0, Kyle & Crossley, 2015).
Prior to participating in the study, participants took two different tests: the Level 10/12 Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT) (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, Dreyer, & Hugues, 2000), and a paper version of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Researchers intervened three times to assess the participants: first, to conduct a background knowledge test; second, to administer the GMRT test; finally, participants took the on-line reading assessment. Researchers recorded word processing times and analyzed the times with regards to “lexical features, textual properties, and individual differences” (p. 1167).
This research focused on five different lexical features of the reading passages: “word frequency, word associations, word concreteness, phonological neighborhood density, and orthographic neighborhood density” (p. 1162). The authors predicted “that more proficient L2 learners in general, more proficient L2 readers in particular, and learners with more background knowledge about the text would process words more quickly” (p. 1163). Findings indicated that word processing times were affected by the text level (beginning, intermediate, or authentic), in that the word processing times were faster when participants read simplified texts. In addition, the authors found that “as L2 readers advanced through a passage, word processing times within the passage decreased,” noting that “[t]his finding may hint at the interactions between readers’ construction of a text’s meaning and their word processing” (p. 1174). In terms of individual differences, the study revealed that L2 reading proficiency was the only factor (among L2 reading proficiency, L2 language proficiency, and background knowledge) that could foretell word processing times, arguing that “more skilled readers recognize and process words faster than less skilled readers” (p. 1174), This finding supports DeKeyser’s (2007) Skill Acquisition Theory that “suggest[s] the skill-specific nature of L2 learning” (p. 1174).
In terms of limitations, the authors note the need for additional research using eye-tracking technologies, which this study did not employ. Furthermore, the authors call for future studies that include more participants from varying L1 backgrounds studying various L2s. Overall, this study provides data to support research on L2 word processing. Though the researchers’ pre-study claims appear to be rooted in common sense, the attention to specific lexical features provides detailed analyses for linguists interested in the theories of reading and word properties. Furthermore, the attention to individual differences affords each participant the benefit of being evaluated based on prior knowledge, which recognizes the uniqueness of language learners in all aspects of language study. Future directions of this study could include research on the intersections of reading abilities and other L2 skills that contribute to L2 proficiency.