Acceso usuarios
Marta Tagliani
, Lucas Cruz, Michela Redolfi, Natalya Shirokorad, Massimiliano Canzi, Chiara Melloni, Maria Vender
Aims and objectives: This study investigates the role of prediction in language comprehension for both native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers of English, focusing on phonological and semantic cues. In addition, it examines whether higher proficiency in the L2 enhances predictive abilities. Methodology: Using the Visual World Paradigm, we explore how Italian learners of English (L2) employ semantic and phonological cues during sentence parsing and compare these findings to native English speakers. Participants viewed images while hearing sentences in English, allowing us to analyze their eye movements and cue responses in real time. Data and analysis: Eye-tracking data from 61 Italian participants at B1, B2, and C1 English proficiency levels, as well as 23 native English speakers, were collected. Visual and auditory stimuli prompted participants to focus on specific items, and their eye movements were recorded. We applied generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) to assess how phonological and semantic cues and varying English proficiency levels influenced the proportion of looks at the target before and after sentence offset. Findings: Results show that across all proficiency levels, participants fixated on the target faster when semantic cues were present in the lexical verb. However, B1 speakers showed a delayed response compared to more advanced groups. Native English speakers also demonstrated a heightened phonological effect in rhyme conditions compared to the L2 learners. Originality: This study is the first to examine whether the presence of multiple cues can enhance L2 predictive processing in relation to the learner’s language proficiency. Significance: The findings advance research on predictive processing in language comprehension, highlighting the importance of understanding the differences between L1 and L2 processing and the role of cue integration in facilitating prediction. Understanding these differences and the role of cue integration in facilitating prediction is crucial for improving language learning outcomes.
