This study explored how to promote incidental collocation learning from task-based reading. In this study, 101 Cantonese speakers read three English texts that contained 12 target collocations. Playing a role as an editor of a magazine, participants were asked to determine if the three texts were acceptable to be published in the next issue. While half of the participants (– Guidance, n = 50) were asked to simply accept or reject the texts after reading, the other half (+ Guidance, n = 51) received task guidance that contained a list of specific reviewing criteria. Participants’ eye-movements were recorded during the editor task, and 10 participants from each condition were asked to produce stimulated recalls while viewing their eye-movements. The rest of the participants’ (n = 81) knowledge about the target collocations was measured with form recall and recognition tests immediately and two weeks after the task. The results revealed that task guidance led to greater fixation durations and counts on the target collocations, as well as improved performances in the immediate posttest. The stimulated recalls further indicated that task guidance encouraged more goal-oriented reading. The findings underscore the importance of careful task design to promote incidental collocation learning from reading.
BarghamadiM.RogersJ.ArciuliJ.MüllerA. (2023). The use of semantic transparency and L1–L2 congruency as multi-word units selection criteria. Studies in English Language and Education, 10, 723–740.
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB., et al. (2014). lme4:Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4 (accessed August 2024).
6.
BaxS. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking. Language Testing, 30, 441–465.
7.
BaxS.WeirC. (2012). Investigating learners’ cognitive reading processes during a computer-based CAE reading test. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes, 47, 3–14.
8.
BoersF.DemecheleerM.CoxheadA.WebbS. (2014). Gauging the effects of exercises on verb–noun collocations. Language Teaching Research, 18, 54–74.
9.
BoersF.EyckmansJ.KappelJ.StengersH.DemecheleerM. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.
10.
BrunfautT.McCrayG. (2015). Looking into test-takers’ cognitive processes whilst completing reading tasks: A mixed-method eye-tracking and stimulated recall study. ARAGs Research Reports Online, AR/2015/001. British Council.
11.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2015). Eye-tracking multi-word units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7, 1–11.
12.
ChoiS. (2017). Processing and learning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study. Language Teaching Research, 21, 403–426.
13.
ChristiansonK. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 817–828.
14.
ChristiansonK.LukeS.G.FerreiraF. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 538–544.
15.
ConklinK.Pellicer-SanchezA.CarrolG. (2018). Eye-tracking: A guide for applied linguistics research. Cambridge University Press.
16.
ConklinK.SchmittN. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.
17.
CunningsI.SturtP. (2014). Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 117–139.
18.
DangT.N.Y.LuC.WebbS. (2022a). Incidental learning of single words and collocations through viewing an academic lecture. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 708–736.
19.
DangT.N.Y.LuC.WebbS. (2022b). Incidental learning of collocations in an academic lecture through different input modes. Language Learning, 72, 728–764.
20.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
21.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
22.
GodfroidA. (2019). Eye tracking in second language acquisition and bilingualism: A research synthesis and methodological guide. Routledge.
23.
GodfroidA.UggenM. S. (2013). Attention to irregular verbs by beginning learners of German: an eye-movement study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 291–322.
24.
HoribaY. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.
25.
HoribaY. (2013). Task-induced strategic processing in L2 text comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25, 98–125.
26.
IndrarathneB.KormosJ. (2017). Attentional processing of input in explicit and implicit conditions: An Eye-Tracking Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 401–430.
27.
JungJ. (2020). Effects of content support on integrated reading–writing task performance and incidental vocabulary learning. System, 93, 102288.
28.
JungJ. (2022). The impact of glossing and reading activity manipulation on learning of L2 lexico-grammatical and lexical items. Language Teaching Research, 26, 777–798.
29.
JungJ.RévészA. (2018). The effects of reading activity characteristics on L2 reading processes and noticing of glossed constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 755–780.
30.
JungJ.RévészA.StainerM., et al. (under review). The impact of gaze-contingent highlighting on incidental learning of collocations from computer-mediated reading.
31.
JungJ.StainerM.TranM. (2022). The impact of textual enhancement and frequency manipulation on incidental learning of collocations from reading. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221129994
32.
KaakinenJ.K.HyönäJ. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239–257.
33.
KaakinenJ.K.HyönäJ. (2007). Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1323–1336.
34.
KhalifaH.WeirC.J. (2009). Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language learning. Cambridge University Press.
35.
LeeM.RévészA. (2018). Promoting grammatical development through textually enhanced captions: An eye-tracking study. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 557–577.
36.
LeowR. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.
37.
LinckJ.A.CunningsI. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207.
38.
LongM.RobinsonP. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
39.
MajuddinE.Siyanova-ChanturiaA.BoersF. (2021). Incidental acquisition of multiword expression through audiovisual materials: The role of repetition and typographic enhancement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 985–1008.
40.
McCruddenM. T.SchrawG. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139.
41.
McCruddenM.T.MaglianoJ.P.SchrawG. (2011). The effect of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48, 69–92.
42.
NorthbrookJ.ConklinK. (2019). Is what you put in what you get out?: Textbook-derived lexical bundles processing in beginner English learners. Applied Linguistics, 40, 816–833.
43.
Pellicer-SánchezA. (2017). Learning L2 collocations incidentally from reading. Language Teaching Research, 21, 381–402.
44.
Pellicer-SánchezA.Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ParenteF. (2022). The effect of frequency of exposure on the processing and learning of collocations: A comparison of first and second language readers’ eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43, 727–756.
45.
PetersE. (2012). Learning German formulaic sequences: The effect of two attention-drawing techniques. Language Learning Journal, 40, 65–79.
46.
PetersE.PuimѐgeE.SzudarskiP. (2023). Repetition and incidental learning of multiword units: A conceptual multisite replication study of Webb, Newton, and Chang (2013). Language Learning, 73, 1211–1251.
47.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘Big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
48.
PuimѐgeE.Montero PerezM.PetersE. (2023). Promoting L2 acquisition of multiword units through textually enhanced audiovisual input: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research, 39, 471–492.
49.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. R foundation for statistical computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org (accessed August 2024).
50.
RévészA.StainerM.JungJ.LeeM.MichelM. (2023). Using eye-tracking as a tool to develop second language lexical skills. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 1–22.
51.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
52.
SagarraN.Seibert HansonA. (2011). Eyetracking methodology: A user’s guide for linguistic research. Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4, 543–555.
53.
SchmittN.SchmittD.ClaphamC. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.
54.
SkehanP. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment, Routledge.
55.
SonbulS.SchmittN. (2013). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge acquisition of collocations under different input conditions. Language Learning, 63, 121–159.
56.
SonbulS.El-DakhsD. A. S.MasraiA. (2023). Second language productive knowledge of collocations: Does knowledge of individual words matter?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(2), 480–502.
57.
StengersH.BoersF.HousenA.EyckmansJ. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association?International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 321–343.
58.
SzudarskiP.CarterR. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 245–265.
59.
SzumilasM. (2010). Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(3), 227–229.
60.
TailleferG.E. (1996). L2 reading ability: Further insight into the short-circuit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 80, 461–477.
61.
ToomerM.ElgortI. (2019). The development of implicit and explicit knowledge of collocations: A conceptual replication and extension of Sonbul and Schmitt (2013). Language Learning, 69, 405–439.
62.
ToomerM.ElgortI.CoxheadA. (2024). Contextual learning of L2 lexical and grammatical collocations with and without typographic enhancement. System, 121, 103235.
63.
VuD.V.PetersE. (2022a). A longitudinal study on the effect of mode of reading on incidental collocation learning and predictors of learning gains. TESOL Quarterly, 57, 5–32.
64.
VuD.V.PetersE. (2022b). Incidental learning of collocations from meaningful input: A longitudinal study into three reading modes and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 685–707.
65.
WangA.F.Pellicer-SánchezA. (2023). Combining eye-tracking and verbal reports in vocabulary research: Benefits and challenges. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2, 100063.
66.
WebbS.ChangA.C.S. (2022). How does mode of input affect the incidental learning of collocations?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 35–56.
67.
WebbS.NewtonJ.ChangA. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63, 91–120.
68.
WeirC.J.YangH.YanJ. (2001). An empirical investigation of the componentiality of L2 reading in English for academic purposes. Cambridge University Press.
69.
YoshimuraF. (2006). Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behavior, text comprehension and noticing of language form?Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 419–434.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
