Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence with different-script languages: Evidence from eye tracking

Abstract

This study compared patterns of nonselective cross-language activation in L1 and L2 visual word recognition with different-script bilinguals. The aim was to determine (1) whether lexical processing is nonselective in the L1 (as in L2), and (2) if the same cross-linguistic factors affected processing similarly in each language. To examine the time course of activation, eye movements were tracked during lexical decision. Thirty-two Japanese–English bilinguals responded to 250 target words in Japanese and in English. The same participants and items (i.e., cognate translation equivalents) were used to directly compare L1 and L2 processing. Response latencies as well as eye movements representing early and late processing were analyzed using mixed-effects regression modeling. Similar cross-linguistic effects, namely cognate word frequency, phonological similarity, and semantic similarity, were found in both languages. These factors affected processing to different degrees in each language, however. While cognate frequency was significant as early as the first fixation, effects of cross-linguistic phonological and semantic similarity arose later in time. Increased phonological similarity slowed responses in L2 but speeded them in L1, while greater semantic overlap was facilitatory in both languages. Results are discussed from the perspective of the BIA+ model of visual word recognition.

What Can Eye Movements Tell Us about Reading in a Second Language: A Scoping Review of the Literature

“…Taken together, the findings from Cui [33], Egan et al [24], Friesen and Jared [38], Demareva et al [42], Rodriguez et al [44], Whitford and Titone [40], Taylor and Mukai [36], Sui et al [37], Martin and Juffs [31], Mor and Prior [48], Winskel et al [28], and Xiao et al [32] shed light on the relationship between orthographical characteristics and reading in bilingual individuals. For example, findings from Friesen and Jared [38] and Rodriguez and colleagues [44] illuminate the role of language structure.…”

“…Across the studies comparing bilinguals' L1 versus L2 performance and eye movements, all but two included language(s) that were alphabetic, the exceptions being studies with Japanese and Chinese participants [36,37]. Five studies used tasks in the form of paragraphs (n = 5), individual words (n = 2), sentences (n = 4), a book (n = 2), or "other" (n = 1).…”

“…There were two studies that recorded eye movements during natural reading tasks with non-alphabetic orthographies to compare processing in L1 vs. L2 [36,37]. Taylor and Mukai [36] measured eye movements (i.e., first fixation duration, gaze duration, and total number of fixations) in Japanese-English bilingual adults while reading Japanese and English words to determine if language processing is restricted in L1 (i.e., nonselective language processing) and determine if L1 and L2 processing are affected by the same cross-linguistic factors. Cross-linguistic factors varied in degree and direction across L1 and L2 processing.…”

“…Only two studies, by Taylor and Mukai [36] and Sui et al [37], examined nonalphabetic languages, Japanese and Chinese, respectively. Their results illuminate how phonological similarities and language opacity uniquely influence reading behaviors in L1 and L2, often resulting in prolonged reading times and altered eye movement dynamics in L2 contexts.…”

“…Finally, Taylor and Mukai [36] expanded on the theme of cross-linguistic influences, demonstrating that phonological and semantic similarities, as well as cognate frequency, significantly impact reading in both L1 and L2. Their findings align with the Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus (BIA+) model, suggesting that orthographic information is processed early and influences later stages of reading.…”