Fortalecer la presencia de las TIC’s en los currículos

As discussed previously in section 4.5.1, Conditions A-D collect reading times at five locations within the region of interest of sentences manipulated for boundedness (via object quantification, see §2.1.2) and for tense-aspect construction. These conditions capture reading times that indicate the relative facility of processing for variations in boundedness in both the simple past and the present perfect. Refer to the below table for a summary of the manipulations in these conditions.

TABLE 6.1. Manipulations in boundedness and tense-aspect for Conditions A-D.

Cdn. Boundedness Grammatical Tense

A +BND Present Perfect

B +BND Simple Past

C –BND Present Perfect

D –BND Simple Past

Recall from section 3.5 that it is expected that manipulations in boundedness and grammatical tense will affect reading times in the regions of interest. It is hypothesized that bounded and nonbounded predicates are not read with equal facility in the simple past and the present perfect, and it is further hypothesized that such variation emerges following prototypical clusters of features. That is, bounded predicates in the present perfect and the simple past (Conditions A & B) will be processed more quickly than nonbounded ones (Conditions C & D), and this trend will especially be true of the present perfect conditions (A & C), following the assumption that boundedness is a prototypical feature of the present perfect. Likewise, it is hypothesized that the effects of the

interactions will be affected by differences in L2 English proficiency and by first language.

IN TOTO. The first set of comparisons concerns the L2 English users as a whole and the English NS group. The first meaningful comparison concerns the bound-

nonbound distinction. The reading times of both the L2 English users and the English NS controls do not show any significant differences between the bounded predicates (A & B) and the nonbounded predicates (C & D). Likewise, the trends observed for reading times by location provide no clear evidence of differential processing obscured by the condition means. These trends exhibited by the groups indicate that, on the whole, the boundedness of the predicates does not meaningfully affect the processing speed of the L2 English users or the English NS controls.

The second meaningful comparison concerns the tense-aspect contrast. Again, the reading times of both the L2 English users and the English NS controls do not show any meaningful differences between the present perfect predicates (A & C) and the simple past ones (B & D) when they are matched for boundedness (A & B and C & D). As is the case for the previous comparisons, the reading times by location provide no evidence of differential processing. However, the descriptive statistics indicate that there may be a meaningful difference in reading times for grammatical tense among the L2 English

users. The reading times for the present perfect (x̄A = 889, x̄C = 914) are slower than the

reading times for the simple past (x̄B = 856, x̄D = 818). This result is expected because the

simple past is learned before and is used more often than the present perfect. As such, the L2 English users should demonstrate greater facility when processing the simple past than when processing the present perfect, which is suggested by these reading times. This facility is more apparent in nonbounded contexts where the simple past predicates (D) are read much more quickly than the present perfect ones (C). This is a surprising result in

the prototype perspective because the nonbounded feature and the simple past clash, which should inhibit processing. It is the expected result in the complexity perspective because Condition D [SPast –BND] is less complex and should require less processing effort.

Overall, the failure to find meaningful differences between conditions indicates that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the processing speed of either group is significantly affected by manipulations in boundedness or grammatical tense in the sentences used in the present investigation. However, the descriptive statistics seem to support some meaningful effect for grammatical tense among the L2 English users. This effect seems to derive from more exposure to or experience with the simple past; this possibility is investigated further when the L2 users are divided by English proficiency.

ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. The second set of comparisons concerns the L2 English users divided by proficiency and the English NS group with a focus on the L2 English users. The Advanced group is considered separately from the others, which are treated together. The Advanced group is the only group to show an effect for boundedness and grammatical tense; the lower proficiency groups show an effect for changes in

grammatical tense only or they show no effects at all.

The reading times of the Advanced group exhibit meaningful differences between

conditions. These differences chiefly concern Condition C [PPerf –BND] (x̄C = 775),

whose reading times are slower than the reading times of the other three conditions. The graphed reading times by location indicate that this slower reading time is due to slower

reading times at Locations 4 and 5 (x̄C.L4 = 927, x̄C.L5 = 795). The most informative

617) and Condition D [SPast –BND] (x̄D = 651), which are matched for grammatical tense and for boundedness, respectively. The reading times in Condition B [SPast +BND]

(x̄B = 647) cast doubt on the meaningfulness of the comparison between Conditions C

[PPerf –BND] and D [SPast –BND]. Alone, the comparison between Conditions C [PPerf –BND] and D [SPast –BND] would indicate that the Advanced group reads the simple past more quickly than the present perfect in nonbounded contexts. The fact that the reading times for Conditions B [SPast +BND] and D [SPast –BND] are so similar emphasizes the effect of grammatical tense over any effect of boundedness. The comparison between the two present perfect conditions (A [PPerf +BND] & C [PPerf – BND]) indicates that the Advanced group processes the bounded predicates more rapidly than nonbounded ones in the present perfect. In order to determine whether or not this trend is one of facilitation or inhibition, comparisons are made between the Advanced and Int.-High groups. For Condition A [PPerf +BND], the two groups’ reading times are

very similar (Adv.: x̄A = 617; Int.-H: x̄A = 619); however, in Condition C [PPerf –BND],

their reading times are significantly different (Adv.: x̄C = 775; Int.-H: x̄C = 611). That is,

the two groups perform similarly in Condition A [PPerf +BND] and differently in Condition C [PPerf –BND]. The deviation from this trend emerges within the Advanced group, who perform significantly more slowly in Condition C [PPerf –BND], which suggests that the nonbounded feature inhibits processing in the present perfect. This finding supports the prototype account, following the assumption that bounded perfects are more prototypical (and thus processed more easily) than nonbounded ones. It contradicts the complexity account because the bounded predicates, which are

syntactically and semantically more complex, are processed more quickly than the nonbounded ones.

There are two additional trends that are potentially meaningful in the reading times for the non-Advanced proficiency groups. First, the Int.-Low and the Low groups exhibit reading times for the present perfect conditions that are slower than they are for the simple past. This finding is expected because the members of both groups either have no formal exposure to the present perfect or have minimal instruction on and practice with the construction. Having only minimal exposure, one would expect some inhibition when these groups try to process the less familiar construction. Second, the reading times of the Int.-High group are largely unaffected by both boundedness and grammatical tense. This is an unexpected finding, and it can be reconciled in three ways: either i) these learners are so familiar with the constructions that they are behaving like native speakers, processing each construction with similar ease, ii) there are task effects associated with the complexity of the SPRT that obscure their processing behavior, or iii) these learners have enough experience with the present perfect for the cost of processing it to

approximate that of the simple past but not enough experience with the construction to meaningfully process the differences in boundedness that affect its meaning. The present investigation favors the third possibility because this interpretation situates the

performance of the Int.-High group meaningfully between the lower proficiency and higher proficiency groups on the following cline of relative processing from fastest to slowest:

This cline supports the prototype account as well as the complexity account. The difference in processing effort between bounded and nonbounded predicates in the present perfect indicates inhibition caused by processing nonprototypical features; however, the fact that boundedness appears to not affect processing effort as the present perfect diverges from the simple past suggests that the processor fails to notice VP-level complexity when acquiring syntactically higher TP-level complexity.

Taken as a whole, these findings indicate how L2 English proficiency affects the relative processing effort required for L2 users to read sentences manipulated for

boundedness and grammatical tense. First, boundedness only affects performance at the highest proficiency level. Specifically, nonbounded predicates have an inhibitory effect in the present perfect, which suggests that processing the nonbounded predicates is more costly for the processor. On the one hand, these predicates are syntactically and semantically less complex than the bounded ones, so the complexity account fails to capture this phenomenon. On the other hand, the prototype account does successfully capture this phenomenon, predicting that the present perfect would emerge first in the more prototypical bounded context.

FIRST LANGUAGE. The third set of comparisons concerns the L2 English users divided by first language and the English NS group with a focus on the L2 English users. The results are discussed in two clusters based on similarities exhibited by the groups. The Arabic and Other groups are analyzed first, followed by the Chinese group.

The reading times of the Arabic and the Other groups exhibit similar trends despite the fact that the Other group’s reading times are significantly faster than the Arabic group’s times in all but one condition (D: p = .231). The two groups exhibit

different trends in bounded contexts only. The Arabic group processes the present perfect

(x̄A = 988) more slowly than the simple past (x̄B = 939), whereas these two conditions are

nearly equal in the Other group (x̄A = 731; x̄B = 740). The likely explanation for this

difference is that the Other group has a significantly higher average proficiency than the Arabic group, and, as such, the Other and Arabic groups exhibit the patterns of the Advanced or Int.-High groups and the Int.-Low group, respectively. Likewise, a

comparison of the reading times by location for these conditions indicate that the Arabic group exhibits a spike in reading times in Condition B [SPast +BND] at Location 4 not

replicated by either L1 group (x̄B.L4 = 1078). In nonbounded contexts, the two groups are

very similar. Both have slower reading times in Condition C [PPerf –BND] (Arabic: x̄C =

1026; Other: x̄C = 796) than they have in Condition D [SPast –BND] (Arabic: x̄D = 855;

Other: x̄D = 683). The reading times by location indicate that the groups follow the same

general processing pattern in Condition C [PPerf –BND], exhibiting slower reading times

at Location 4 (Arabic: x̄C.L4 = 1202; Other: x̄C.L4 = 833). In Condition D [SPast –BND],

the Other group exhibits no significantly slower reading time at any location, but the Arabic group still exhibits a slightly slower-than-average reading time at Location 4

(x̄D.L4 = 928), a fact which is obscured in the average reading time by the faster reading

times in Location 3 (x̄D.L3 = 749). Together, these trends exhibited in Conditions C [PPerf

–BND] and D [SPast –BND] indicate that reading the nonbounded present perfect sentences requires more processing effort than reading the nonbounded simple past ones. The facilitation that the Arabic group experiences in Condition D [SPast –BND] is enough to cause the aforementioned only nonsignificant difference between the two

groups. As is the case with the Advanced group above, this trend in the nonbounded conditions supports the prototype account and contradicts the complexity account.

The reading times of the Chinese group exhibits different enough trends that it seems justified to separate them from the other two groups. Like the Arabic group but

unlike the Other group, the Chinese group processes the present perfect (x̄A = 930) more

slowly than the simple past (x̄B = 896). Like both groups, the Chinese group also has

slower reading times in Condition C [PPerf –BND] (x̄C = 933) than in Condition D [SPast

–BND] (x̄D = 869); however, this difference is much smaller than it is for the other two

groups, and the Chinese group’s reading times by location are more irregular in

Condition D [SPast –BND] than C [PPerf –BND]. Taken together, these trends exhibited between A [PPerf +BND] & B [SPast +BND] and C [PPerf –BND] & D [SPast –BND] indicate that the Chinese group is chiefly affected by manipulations in grammatical tense. The fact that these two trends are similar indicates that they are less affected by

boundedness than the other two groups and are equally affected by grammatical tense. In this respect, they appear to behave like the Int.-Low and Low groups above, and thus provide some support for the complexity account over the prototype account. This similarity in trends should not be considered to be the effect of proficiency. The Chinese group’s reading times are significantly faster than the proficiency-matched Arabic group and are not significantly different from the Other group, which has higher average proficiency.

Overall, these findings provide evidence of meaningful difference between the L1 groups that cannot be explained solely by differences in proficiency. In bounded contexts, the Arabic and the Chinese groups exhibit different readings times for each tense-aspect

construction while the Other group exhibits no such difference. It should be noted that the difference between Conditions A [PPerf +BND] and B [SPast +BND] is much smaller for the Chinese group than for the Arabic group, which situates the Chinese group between the Arabic and the Other group in these contexts. The nonbounded contexts seem to be more volatile between conditions for all L2 users; each group has greater differences between Conditions C [PPerf –BND] & D [SPast –BND] than between A [PPerf +BND] & B [SPast +BND]. In these conditions, the Arabic and the Other groups perform

similarly, exhibiting larger differences between conditions than the Chinese group. Taken together, these findings indicate three aspects of processing: i) the present perfect

requires more processing effort than the simple past, ii) the present perfect and the simple past are more distinguished in nonbounded contexts, and iii) the present perfect requires more processing effort in nonbounded contexts than in bounded ones. Overall, the groups’ reading times seem to be more closely adhering to the prototype account when boundedness is a factor.

RQ1, CONCLUSIONS. The data from conditions A-D from the first administration support the following conclusions to RQ1 and its subquestions.

Main question: Yes, manipulations in boundedness affect how some instructed adult L2 learners of English process past time constructions.

Subquestion (a): It is unclear whether the processing of the adult learners is qualitatively similar to the processing of the adult native speakers because the reading times of the native speaker controls do not exhibit any significant or meaningful differences between conditions. This may either be the result of a task not sensitive

enough to capture so thoroughly entrenched and rapid native speaker processing, or it may be an indication of qualitative differences between the groups.

Subquestion (b): Yes, the processing of the adult learners is affected by

differences in L2 English proficiency. The Advanced group is the only group to show an effect for boundedness; the lowest two proficiency groups only show an effect for grammatical tense. The Int.-High group exhibits trend that appears to be between these two extremes wherein changes in grammatical tense no longer inhibit processing but changes in boundedness do not yet measurably affect the processor.

Subquestion (c): Yes, the processing of the adult learners is affected by the L1 processor. There are certainly meaningful differences in processing exhibited by the three groups, but the most meaningful comparisons in the present investigation concern the Arabic and Chinese groups. Contrary to predictions, the Arabic group appears to perform more like the Advanced group than their proficiency would predict, which suggests that they are experiencing some benefit from their L1 processors. The Chinese group

performs in the manner expected by their average proficiency, which suggests that their L1 processors do not measurably affect their L2 processing in this task. These findings

may be the result of learned attention, a phenomenonby which L2 learners preferentially

attend either to structures from the L1 or to structures acquired earlier in the L2 (Ellis & Sagarra 2010; Ellis et al. 2012; Sagarra & Ellis 2013). For the former finding that is indicative of positive L1 transfer, attention required to process syntactic-semantic cues in the L1 may have led the Arabic group to process L2 structures that also employ syntactic- semantic cues with greater-than-expected facility. As to the latter finding, since their L1 does not employ comparable syntactic-semantic cues, the Chinese group’s processors

may ignore or be blind to these cues in the L2, which manifests in these results as reading times that are not indicative of either positive or negative L1 transfer.

6.1.2 CURRENT RELEVANCE CONTRASTS,SPRT.

As discussed previously in section 4.5.1, Conditions E-H collect reading times at five locations within the region of interest of sentences manipulated for overtly marked current relevance (via [+/–CR] adverbial modifiers in first position, see Table 4.3) and for tense-aspect construction. These conditions capture reading times that indicate the

relative facility of processing for variations in overtly marked current relevance in both the simple past and the present perfect. Refer to the below table for a summary of the manipulations in these conditions.

TABLE 6.2. Manipulations in overtly marked CR and tense-aspect for Conditions E-H.

Cdn. Current Rel. Grammatical Tense

E +CR Present Perfect

F +CR Simple Past

G –CR Present Perfect

H –CR Simple Past

Recall from section 3.5 that it is expected that manipulations in overtly marked current relevance and grammatical tense will affect reading times in the regions of interest. That is, it is hypothesized that sentences with the combination of [+CR] adverbial modifiers and the present perfect (Condition E [PPerf +CR]) will be processed more rapidly than sentences with [–CR] adverbial modifiers in the present perfect (Condition G [PPerf – CR]). Likewise, it is hypothesized that sentences with the combination of [–CR] adverbial modifiers and the simple past (Condition H [SPast –CR]) will be processed more rapidly than sentences with [+CR] adverbial modifiers in the simple past (Condition F [SPast +CR]). Further, it is expected that the effects of the interactions between current

relevance and grammatical tense will be affected by differences in L2 English proficiency and by first language.

IN TOTO. The first set of comparisons concerns the L2 English users as a whole

and the English NS group. The first meaningful comparison concerns the [+/–CR] distinction. The reading times of both the L2 English users and the English NS controls do not show any significant differences between the [+CR]-modified predicates (E & F) and the [–CR]-modified predicates (G & H). These trends exhibited by the groups indicate that, on the whole, overtly marked current relevance does not meaningfully affect the processing speed of either the L2 English users or the English NS controls. Visual analysis of the four graphs for reading times by location indicates that the English