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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Uschi Cop, Denis Drieghe, Wouter Duyck
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