Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel.
This paper presents a corpus of sentence level eye movement parameters for unbalanced bilingual first language (L1) and second-language (L2) reading and monolingual reading of a complete novel (56 000 words). We present important sentence-level basic eye movement parameters of both bilingual and mon...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2015-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4545791?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-ff3c5e98a67a4aec9d1d6a4cba8195e4 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-ff3c5e98a67a4aec9d1d6a4cba8195e42020-11-25T02:04:35ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01108e013400810.1371/journal.pone.0134008Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel.Uschi CopDenis DriegheWouter DuyckThis paper presents a corpus of sentence level eye movement parameters for unbalanced bilingual first language (L1) and second-language (L2) reading and monolingual reading of a complete novel (56 000 words). We present important sentence-level basic eye movement parameters of both bilingual and monolingual natural reading extracted from this large data corpus.Bilingual L2 reading patterns show longer sentence reading times (20%), more fixations (21%), shorter saccades (12%) and less word skipping (4.6%), than L1 reading patterns. Regression rates are the same for L1 and L2 reading. These results could indicate, analogous to a previous simulation with the E-Z reader model in the literature, that it is primarily the speeding up of lexical access that drives both L1 and L2 reading development. Bilingual L1 reading does not differ in any major way from monolingual reading. This contrasts with predictions made by the weaker links account, which predicts a bilingual disadvantage in language processing caused by divided exposure between languages.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4545791?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Uschi Cop Denis Drieghe Wouter Duyck |
spellingShingle |
Uschi Cop Denis Drieghe Wouter Duyck Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Uschi Cop Denis Drieghe Wouter Duyck |
author_sort |
Uschi Cop |
title |
Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel. |
title_short |
Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel. |
title_full |
Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel. |
title_fullStr |
Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Eye Movement Patterns in Natural Reading: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Reading of a Novel. |
title_sort |
eye movement patterns in natural reading: a comparison of monolingual and bilingual reading of a novel. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2015-01-01 |
description |
This paper presents a corpus of sentence level eye movement parameters for unbalanced bilingual first language (L1) and second-language (L2) reading and monolingual reading of a complete novel (56 000 words). We present important sentence-level basic eye movement parameters of both bilingual and monolingual natural reading extracted from this large data corpus.Bilingual L2 reading patterns show longer sentence reading times (20%), more fixations (21%), shorter saccades (12%) and less word skipping (4.6%), than L1 reading patterns. Regression rates are the same for L1 and L2 reading. These results could indicate, analogous to a previous simulation with the E-Z reader model in the literature, that it is primarily the speeding up of lexical access that drives both L1 and L2 reading development. Bilingual L1 reading does not differ in any major way from monolingual reading. This contrasts with predictions made by the weaker links account, which predicts a bilingual disadvantage in language processing caused by divided exposure between languages. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4545791?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT uschicop eyemovementpatternsinnaturalreadingacomparisonofmonolingualandbilingualreadingofanovel AT denisdrieghe eyemovementpatternsinnaturalreadingacomparisonofmonolingualandbilingualreadingofanovel AT wouterduyck eyemovementpatternsinnaturalreadingacomparisonofmonolingualandbilingualreadingofanovel |
_version_ |
1724942322432475136 |