Article In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Chunk reading strategy training improves multiword processing by Japanese English learners

ORCID logo | The University of Melbourne
 | The University of Melbourne
The Chunk-and-Pass model suggests that language acquisition involves learning to appropriately chunk language input into multiword sequences and to form more abstract linguistic representations. While the theoretical model has gained widespread attention in the language sciences, there are limited studies that adopt this model, particularly in the context of second language (L2) learning and teaching research. This study examines the effects of Chunk Reading Strategy Training (CRST), which was developed based on the model, on multiword processing in low-proficiency Japanese learners of English. A treatment group received CRST, while a control group underwent standard block-format reading training. A phrasal decision test assessed online multiword processing at pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest stages. The results indicated improvement in response times post-intervention for the treatment group, and only in the delayed posttest for the control group. This study, therefore, discusses the theoretical implications and limitations of CRST.
Keywords: Chunk-and-Pass model, chunk reading strategy training, construction grammar, multiword processing, second language
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The Chunk-and-Pass Model
  • Second language processing of multiword units and constructions
  • Chunk Reading Strategy Training
  • The present study
  • Methods
    • Participants
  • Materials
    • Chunk Reading Strategy Training
    • Reading training in Block Format
    • Measurement: Phrasal Decision Task
  • Procedure
  • Data cleaning and analysis
  • Results
    • L1 Speakers
    • Short-term treatment effects
    • Long-term treatment effects
  • Discussion
  • Educational implications and conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • Data Availability
  • Declarations
    • Conflicting Interests
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (58)
References
Abney, S. P. (1992). Parsing by chunks. Principle-based parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics, 257–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57 (4), 502–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62 (1), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, C. T., & Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. C. (2015a). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015b). Parsimonious mixed models. arXivpreprint arXiv:1506.04967. [URL]
Brehm, L., & Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 125 1, 104334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., Savova, V., & Gibson, E. (2012). Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of memory and language, 66 (1), 194–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Debeer, D. (2023). How to run linear mixed effects analysis for pairwise comparisons? A tutorial and a proposal for the calculation of standardized effect sizes. PsyArXive. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39 1. e62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 40 (3), 693–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Science, 24 (1), 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2023, October 6). Global scale-Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 24 (2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic-and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24 (2), 289–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41 1, 1149–1160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition: A complex picture?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 249–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to arguments structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jeong, H., & DeKeyser, R. (2023). Development of automaticity in processing L2 collocations: The roles of L1 collocational knowledge and practice condition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, H., Ji, L., Cheung, O. S., & Hayward, W. G. (2024). Facilitation and interference are asymmetric in holistic face processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2020). Meaningfulness beats frequency in multiword chunk processing. Cognitive Science, 44 (10), e12885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Fang, S. (2022). A generative approach to the instructed second language acquisition of Spanish se. Language Learning, 72 (S1), 83–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20 (2), 137–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., Shin, G. H., & Hwang, H. (2020). Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42 (4), 825–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosaka, T. (2023). The Effects of Chunk Reading Training on the Syntactic Processing Skills and Reading Spans of Japanese Learners of English. Reading in a Foreign Language, 35 (2). [URL]
(2024). The multiword processing by low-proficiency Japanese English learners: Meaningfulness and constructions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34 (2), 672–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2013). Fluency: Developmental and Remedial Practices-Revisited. In D. A. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 385–411). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., Hayes, B. K., & Navarro, D. J. (2019). Negative evidence and inductive reasoning in generalization of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148 (2), 289–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, V. R. (2023). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. (Version 1.8.8) [Computer software]. Retrieved from [URL]
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A–Z of applied linguistics research methods. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94 1, 305–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Computational investigations of multiword chunks in language learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9 (3), 637–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., Pinto, V., Janda, B., Lam, E., … & van Boekel, M. (2015). Developing a reading comprehension intervention: Translating cognitive theory to educational practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40 1, 28–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2), 81–97. [URL]. DOI logo
Mitsugi, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). Second language processing in Japanese scrambled sentences. Research in second language processing and parsing, 53 (1), 159–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murakami, A., & Ellis, N. C. (2022). Effects of availability, contingency, and formulaicity on the accuracy of English grammatical morphemes in second language writing. Language Learning, 72 (4), 899–940. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagle, C. (2018). Motivation, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish: Investigating motivation as a time-varying predictor of pronunciation development. The Modern Language Journal, 102 (1), 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Y. (2018). Syntactic enhancement: Bootstrapping for second language reading. Journal of Cognitive Science, 18 (4), 473–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Syntactic enhancement and second language literacy: An experimental study. Language Learning & Technology, 20 (3), 180–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Y., Xu, Y., Collins, P., Farkas, G., & Warschauer, M. (2019). Scaffolding learning of language structures with visual-syntactic text formatting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (4), 1896–1912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and language, 41 (3), 427–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [URL]
Saito, K., Hanzawa, K., Petrova, K., Kachlicka, M., Suzukida, Y., & Tierney, A. (2022). Incidental and multimodal high variability phonetic training: Potential, limits, and future directions. Language Learning, 72 (4), 1049–1091. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior research methods, 42 (4), 1096–1104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44 (1), 24–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tate, T. P., Collins, P., Xu, Y., Yau, J. C., Krishnan, J., Prado, Y., … & Warschauer, M. (2019). Visual-syntactic text format: Improving adolescent literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23 (4), 287–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Calude, A. (2015). The role of statistical learning in the acquisition of motion event construal in a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18 (5), 602–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, S., Schloss, P., Fletcher, C. R., Vogel, C. A., & Walker, R. C. (2005). Visual-syntactic text formatting: A new method to enhance online reading. Reading Online, 8 (6), 1096–1232.Google Scholar
Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78 (3), 645–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, J., & Ichikawa, S. (2010). Examining reading fluency in a foreign language: Effects of text segmentation on L2 readers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22 (2), 263–283.Google Scholar
Yi, W., & Zhong, Y. (2023). The processing advantage of multiword sequences: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., & Dong, X. (2019). Input frequency and construction interference interactions in L2 development. Second Language Research, 35 (4), 505–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar