Abstract
Typical print formatting provides no information regarding the linguistic features of a text, although texts vary considerably with respect to grammatical complexity and readability. Complex texts may be particularly challenging for individuals with weak language knowledge, such as English language learners. This paper investigates the usefulness of a text format referred to as Linguistically-Driven Text Formatting (LDTF), which provides visual cues to grammatical structure for in-the-moment language support during reading. We assessed reading comprehension in adult English Language Learners after a two-session exposure to the new format (also called Cascade Format). Participants’ primary languages were Mandarin and Korean, which have substantially different syntactic structures from English. Ninety participants (30 L1 English, 30 L1 Mandarin, 30 L1 Korean) were randomly assigned to either the traditional or the LDTF format and read six English passages across two sessions within the same week. Comprehension was assessed via questions that probe sentence comprehension and global text properties. Participants also completed a TOEFL assessment, presented in either LDTF or traditional format. Bayesian analyses showed that the Cascade Format improved sentence comprehension relative to control participants for all language groups and experience levels. Effects on the TOEFL assessment, which taps inferencing and meta-linguistic skills, were not observed. Syntactic knowledge plays a fundamental role in reading comprehension, and LDTF appears to support comprehension by providing visual cues to this knowledge that can be used at the very moment of meaning construction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data and analyses are publicly available on OSF: https://osf.io/7s5tb/
Notes
Whereas syntactic knowledge can be defined as the ability to recognize and interpret syntactic grammatical structures during reading, syntactic awareness represents a more metalinguistic skill that allows readers to reflect upon and manipulate these structures (Tunmer et al. (1988)). Although both are predictors of comprehension, recent work by Brimo and colleagues (2017) show that syntactic awareness is only a significant predictor when mediated by syntactic knowledge, thus syntactic knowledge is likely the better predictor for more immediate comprehension abilities.
The lowest effect size of 0.73 was found by Spada and Tomita (2010) for explicit instruction of simple linguistic features.
References
Adlof, S. M., & Catts, H. W. (2015). Morphosyntax in poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 28, 1051–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9562-3
Alqahtani, F. (2019). Investigating the Effect of structure complexity on students’ recognition of the subject slot. Online Submission, 2(6), 77–82. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602312.pdf
Andrews, S., & Veldre, A. (2021). Wrapping up sentence comprehension: The role of task demands and individual differences. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1817028
Andrews, S., Veldre, A., & Clarke, I. E. (2020). Measuring lexical quality: The role of spelling ability. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2257–2282. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01387-3
Balthazar, C. H., & Scott, C. M. (2023). Sentences are key: Helping school-age children and adolescents build sentence skills needed for real language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00038
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to metaanalysis. Wiley.
Bowey, J. A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing reading comprehension monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(2), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(86)90041-X
Breen, M. (2014). Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(2), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12061
Breen, M., Kaswer, L., Van Dyke, J. A., Krivokapić, J., & Landi, N. (2016). Imitated prosodic fluency predicts reading comprehension ability in good and poor high school readers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1026. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01026
Breen, M., Van Dyke, J. A., Krivokapić, J., & Landi, N. (in press). Prosodic features in production reflect reading comprehension skill in high school students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2012). The time-course and spatial distribution of brain activity associated with sentence processing. Neuroimage, 60(2), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.030
Brimo, D., Apel, K., & Fountain, T. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12050
Brothers, T., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading: Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 42(12), 1894. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000257
Bürkner, P. (2017). Brms: An R package for bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80, 1–28.
Cai, Y., & Yao, X. (2022). Teaching complex sentences in ESL Reading: Structural analysis. International Journal of English Linguistics, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v12n5p59
Campanelli, L., Van Dyke, J. A., & Landi, N. (2023). Semantic and syntactic processing in poor comprehenders: Evidence from eye-tracking and computational modeling. Paper presented at the Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Boston, MA, November 16–18.
Chen, L., Goucha, T., Männel, C., Friederici, A. D., & Zaccarella, E. (2021). Hierarchical syntactic processing is beyond mere associating: Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence from a novel artificial grammar. Human Brain Mapping, 42(10), 3253–3268. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25432
Choi, Y., & Zhang, D. (2021). The relative role of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: A systematic review of literature. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0033
Christianson, K. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060206
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006c). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000250
CliftonJr, C., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00070-6
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2019 Reading Assessmenthttps://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/?grade=12
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first-and second‐language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4
Drummond, A., von der Malsburg, T., Erlewine, M. Y., & Vafaie, M. (2016). Ibex Farm. https://github.com/addrummond/ibex
Eager, C. D., & Roy, J. (2017). Mixed models are sometimes terrible. Linguistic Society of America, Austin, TXhttps://publish.illinois.edu/quantitativelinguistics/files/2017/01/LSA2017.Mixed-Models-are-Sometimes-Terrible-final.pdf
Enright, M., Grabe, W., Koda, K., Mosenthal, P., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M. (2000). TOEFL 2000 reading framework. Educational Testing Service.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2013). Growth and predictors of change in English language learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(4), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12003
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
Flick, G., & Pylkkänen, L. (2020). Isolating syntax in natural language: MEG evidence for an early contribution of left posterior temporal cortex. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 127, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.025
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8
Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1357–1392. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00006.2011
Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G., & Su, Y. (2008). A default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(4), 1360–1383. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30245139
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–483). John Benjamins.
Gottardo, A., Mirza, A., Koh, P. W., Ferreira, A., & Javier, C. (2018). Unpacking listening comprehension: The role of vocabulary, morphological awareness, and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31, 1741–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9736-2. https://link.springer.com/article/
Graf, R., & Torrey, J. W. (1966). Perception of phrase structure in written language. In American Psychological Association Convention Proceedings (Vol. 83, p. 84).
Groen, M. A., Veenendaal, N. J., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The role of prosody in reading comprehension: Evidence from poor comprehenders. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12133
Guo, Y. (2008). The role of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension of adult English language learners. The Florida State University. https://www.proquest.com/docview/250788062?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations & Theses
Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S. (2011). The relation of morphological awareness and syntactic awareness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary knowledge a mediating variable? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11403086
Huang, J. C. T., & Liu, N. (2014). A new passive form in Mandarin: Its syntax and implications. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1(1), 1–34.
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2022). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates. In Bilingual processing and acquisition (BPA). Understanding l2 proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations (pp. 29–86). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://www.jbe-platform.com/docserver/fulltext/9789027257697.pdf#page=42
Jespersen, O. (1984). Analytic syntax. University of Chicago Press.
Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818776671
Kaushanskaya, M., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2020). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 945–950. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000038
Kimball, A. E., Shantz, K., Eager, C., & Roy, J. (2019). Confronting quasi-separation in logistic mixed effects for linguistic data: A bayesian approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(3), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1499457
Koopman, H. (2005). Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(4), 601–633.
Kuhfeld, M., Lewis, K., & Peltier, T. (2023). Reading achievement declines during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from 5 million U.S. students in grades 3–8. Reading and Writing, 36, 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10345-8
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y-C., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495996.pdf
Levasseur, V. M., Macaruso, P., Palumbo, L. C., & Shankweiler, D. (2006). Syntactically cued text facilitates oral reading fluency in developing readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(3), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060346
Li, L., Zhu, D., & Wu, X. (2021). The effects of vocabulary breadth and depth on reading comprehension in middle childhood: The mediator role of listening comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(4), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1809585
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013a). Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000351
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013b). Integrating meaning and structure in L1–L2 and L2–L1 translations. Second Language Research, 29(3), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312462019
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2015). Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1283–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000290
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading tests–Fourth Edition. Riverside Publishing.
Mackay, E., Lynch, E., Duncan, S., T., & Deacon, S. H. (2021). Informing the science of reading: Students’ awareness of sentence-level information is important for reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S221–S230. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.397
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
Masson, M. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5
McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 134.
McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.432
Mollica, F., Siegelman, M., Diachek, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Mineroff, Z., Futrell, R., & Fedorenko, E. (2020). Composition is the core driver of the language-selective network. Neurobiology of Language, 1(1), 104–134. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00005
National Center for Education Statistics (2022). State nonfiscal survey of public elementary and secondary education, 2008–2021, EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678, Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA database.
National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. National Institute for Literacy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508381.pdf
Nassaji, H. (2015). The scope of language teaching studies. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 394–396.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Pichette, F., & Leśniewska, J. (2018). Percentage of L1-based errors in ESL: An update on Ellis (1985). International Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 1–16. http://www.ijls.net/pages/volume/vol12no2.html
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2021). Patterns and predictors of reading comprehension growth in first and second language readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12347
Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M., & Vasishth, S. (2021). Toward a principled bayesian workflow in cognitive science. Psychological Methods, 26(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000275
Shain, C., Blank, I. A., Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Schuler, W. (2022). Robust effects of working memory demand during naturalistic language comprehension in language-selective cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 42(39), 7412–7430. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1894-21.2022
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12001
Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207071513
Siu, T. S. C., & Ho, S. H. C. (2020). A longitudinal investigation of syntactic awareness and reading comprehension in chinese-english bilingual children. Learning and Instruction, 67, 101327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101327
Sohail, J., Sorenson Duncan, T., Koh, P. W., et al. (2022). How syntactic awareness might influence reading comprehension in English–French bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 35, 1289–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10245-3
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1561700
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading research quarterly, 134–158.
Van Dyke, J. A. (2021). Introduction to the special issue: Mechanisms of variation in reading comprehension: Processes and products. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1873347
Van Dyke, J., A., & Dempsey, J. (submitted). Linguistically-driven text formatting improves reading comprehension: Evidence from 4th and 5th graders.
Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002
Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131(3), 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.007
Van Dyke, J. A., Gorman, M., & Lacek, M. (2021). Linguistically-driven automated text formatting (U.S. Patent No. 11,170,154 B1). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. https://imageppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11170154
Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105
Wagenmakers, E. J., Verhagen, J., Ly, A., Matzke, D., Steingroever, H., Rouder, J. N., & Morey, R. D. (2017). The need for Bayesian hypothesis testing in psychological science. Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119095910.ch8
Walker, R. C., Gordon, A. S., Schloss, P., Fletcher, C. R., Voge, C. A., & Walker, S. (2007). Visual-Syntactic Text Formatting: Theoretical Basis and Empirical Evidence for Impact on Human Reading, IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Seattle, WA, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2007.4464068
White, S., Sabatini, J., Park, B. J., Chen, J., Bernstein, J., & Li, M. (2021). The 2018 NAEP oral reading fluency study. NCES. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612205.pdf
Zarei, A. A., & Neya, S. S. (2014). The effect of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse-oriented activities on short and long-term L2 reading comprehension. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 1(1), 29–39. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=8747d9490ba5115eae6afa90a1a60250aa952373
Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 558–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01398.x
ZipoliJr, R. P. (2017). Unraveling difficult sentences: Strategies to support reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659465
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The funding for this study was provided by Cascade Reading, Inc., and two of the three authors involved in this research received compensation for their part in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This manuscript reports original, unpublished research conducted under the oversight of the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board. The study was judged to be Exempt and was not required to be registered as a clinical trial. Funding was provided by Cascade Reading, Inc. and Jack Dempsey and Julie Van Dyke both received compensation for their participation in the study. Kiel Christianson did not receive compensation for his participation in the study. Data from the study is available at https://osf.io/7s5tb/.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dempsey, J., Christianson, K. & Van Dyke, J.A. Linguistically-driven text formatting improves reading comprehension for ELLs and EL1s. Read Writ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10548-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10548-1