Allocation of Limited Cognitive Resources During Text Comprehension in a Second Language

Bibliographic Data

ID11273633
AuthorsMorishima Yasunori (0000-0001-9392-3039, International Christian University, corresponding author), Yasunori Morishima (International Christian University)
Year2013
Volume50
Issue8
Pages577-597
Publication date2013-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueDiscourse Processes (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0163-853X • E-ISSN: 1532-6950
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0163853x.2013.846964
OpenAlexW2328817633
LanguageEN
Citations received15
References cited42

For native (L1) comprehenders, lower-level language processes such as lexical access and parsing are considered to consume few cognitive resources. In contrast, these processes pose considerable demands for second-language (L2) comprehenders. Two reading-time experiments employing inconsistency detection found that English learners did not detect an inconsistency unless contradicting parts were adjacent. This suggests that the text memory that L2 comprehenders can access online is an immediately preceding sentence. This makes a sharp contrast with the finding of previous research that L1 comprehenders appeared to retrieve an earlier portion that was several sentences away. A third experiment with probe verification suggested that L2 participants did not reactivate prior text information when reading the contradicting sentence following an intervening sentence. These results provide evidence for the limited resource allocation for discourse-level processes in L2 comprehension. The results are discussed based on the two-stage model that consists of the resonance and integration processes. Acknowledgments This research was partly supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 23530949). I thank David Rackham for his assistance in material development; Sayaka Sato for her assistance in the first experiment; Walter Kintsch for providing the experimental environment at the University of Colorado, Boulder; and the editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier versions of this article. Notes 1 Analyses with items as a random factor were also performed on the data in this study. However, none of the analyses showed a significant effect. Thus, they are not reported

Cognition · Cognitive psychology · Comprehension · Contrast (vision · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Parsing · Question answering · Reading (process · Reading comprehension · Sentence · Computer Science · Language Development and Disorders · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development · Artificial Intelligence

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub