FACE 4 EYE 5 NOSE 6 EAR 7

FACE 4

EYE 5

NOSE 6

EAR 7

POT 8

POT 9

Модели двуязычного лексического доступа Двуязычная Интерактивная Активация + (Bilingual Interactive Activation + ) Dijkstra, T. , van Heuven, W. J. B. , 2002. The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: from identification to decision. Biling‐Lang. Cogn. 5, 175– 197. 12

17

Фиксации Средняя длина фиксации: 250 ms Rayner, K. (2009). The 35 th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62(8), 1457 -1506. First Fixation Duration Single Fixation Duration Gaze Durations Total Time reading 18

Чтение на русском у монолингвов: есть различия? Взрослые: Laurinavichyute, Sekerina, Alexeeva, Bagdasaryan & Kliegl, (2019): Нет Дети: Korneev, Akhutina & Matveeva (2017): Нет 23

30

Последовательность движения глаз (Alfred Yarbus, 1967) Time (ms) Scanpaths – Word Position 35

Prediction in reading in Heritage Speakers and L 2 learners: Chapter 4 (Aim 2; Exp. 4) Selective References Clahsen, H. , & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3‐ 42. Dijkstra, T. , & Van Heuven, W. J. (2002). Modeling bilingual word recognition: past, present and future. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 219‐ 224. Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 187‐ 220. Scontras, G. , Polinsky, M. , & Fuchs, Z. (2018). In support of representational economy: Agreement in heritage Spanish. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1). Gollan, T. H. , Montoya, R. I. , Cera, C. , & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787‐ 814. Gor, K. , Cook, S. , and Pandza, N. (2018, February). Hearing is not seeing: Is there and auditory advantage and a visual disadvantage in Heritage Speakers compared to late L 2 learners? Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Heritage/Community Languages, Los Angeles, CA. Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye‐movement investigation. Language Learning, 59(3), 503‐ 535. Korneev, А. , Akhutina, Т. , & Matveeva, E. (2017). Silent reading in Russian junior schoolchildren: an eye tracking study. Psychology, Journal of Higher School of Economics, 14(2). Laurinavichyute, A. K. , Sekerina, I. A. , Alexeeva, S. , Bagdasaryan, K. , & Kliegl, R. (2018). Russian Sentence Corpus: Benchmark measures of eye movements in reading in Russian. Behavior Research Methods, 1‐ 18. Pickering, M. J. & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002‐ 1044. Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6(1). Scontras, G. , Fuchs, Z. , & Polinsky, M. (2015). Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Art. 1545. Siyanova‐Chanturia, A. , Conklin, K. , & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye‐tracking study of idiom processing by native and non‐native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2), 251‐ 272. Slabakova. R. (2018). Ch. 20. Inflectional morphology. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds. ), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition. von der Malsburg, T. , & Vasishth, S. (2011). What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis? Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 109– 127 42

Prediction in reading in Heritage Speakers and L 2 learners: Chapter 4 (Aim 2; Exp. 4) Selective References Clahsen, H. , & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3‐ 42. Dijkstra, T. , & Van Heuven, W. J. (2002). Modeling bilingual word recognition: past, present and future. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 219‐ 224. Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 187‐ 220. Scontras, G. , Polinsky, M. , & Fuchs, Z. (2018). In support of representational economy: Agreement in heritage Spanish. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1). Gollan, T. H. , Montoya, R. I. , Cera, C. , & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787‐ 814. Gor, K. , Cook, S. , and Pandza, N. (2018, February). Hearing is not seeing: Is there and auditory advantage and a visual disadvantage in Heritage Speakers compared to late L 2 learners? Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Heritage/Community Languages, Los Angeles, CA. Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye‐movement investigation. Language Learning, 59(3), 503‐ 535. Korneev, А. , Akhutina, Т. , & Matveeva, E. (2017). Silent reading in Russian junior schoolchildren: an eye tracking study. Psychology, Journal of Higher School of Economics, 14(2). Laurinavichyute, A. K. , Sekerina, I. A. , Alexeeva, S. , Bagdasaryan, K. , & Kliegl, R. (2018). Russian Sentence Corpus: Benchmark measures of eye movements in reading in Russian. Behavior Research Methods, 1‐ 18. Pickering, M. J. & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002‐ 1044. Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6(1). Scontras, G. , Fuchs, Z. , & Polinsky, M. (2015). Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Art. 1545. Siyanova‐Chanturia, A. , Conklin, K. , & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye‐tracking study of idiom processing by native and non‐native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2), 251‐ 272. Slabakova. R. (2018). Ch. 20. Inflectional morphology. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds. ), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition. von der Malsburg, T. , & Vasishth, S. (2011). What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis? Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 109– 127 43

Conclusions , Reading Strategy Users Underlying processes Theory Fluent Monolingual adult readers All components of reading fluency are developed Intermediate Children, Highproficiency HSs Local difficulties (word recognition) Divergent Attainment, Weaker links hypothesis Beginner Low-proficiency HSs, L 2 learners Global difficulties (syntactic and semantic integration) Good‐enough parsing account Interdependence Hypothesis 44

Study 1: Participants High-proficiency Low-proficiency HSs L 2 Learners HSs Mean (SD) 21 27 27 17. 52 (3. 4) 19. 07 (3. 68) 21. 04 (6. 99) 13: 8 22: 5 17: 10 Age of Arrival to USA (years) 5. 10 (5. 42) 2. 33 (4. 26) 0. 15 (0. 77) Age of Reading start in Russian (years) 4. 52 (2. 11) 10. 26 (5. 75) 17. 67 (5. 84) 35. 10 (17. 31) 22. 37 (17. 21) 6. 81 (5. 8) 30– 60 0– 30 Mean (SD) N Age (y. o) Gender (women: men) Daily Russian language exposure (%) Daily reading exposure to Russian (min) 45

Basic characteristics of eye movements in reading: Chapter 1 (Aim 1; Exp. 1) Bilingual RSC: Assessment 1 - Russian • Single word reading (Fotekova & Akhutina, 2011) мак нож день пила ем юг юла курица дерево собака сапоги голубика • Composite score: флаг йод цирк стул крик шмель блеск ствол ванна диван забор индюк (1) speed of reading (2) errors 46

Basic characteristics of eye movements in reading: Chapter 1 (Aim 1; Exp. 1) Bilingual RSC : Assessment 3 - English Word Identification (Word ID-Eng) (WRMT 3 rd edition, Woodcock, 2011). • • • 17 items of increasing difficulty (e. g. , plausible, abdominal - ennui, dossier). Maximum score of 46 points Testing is discontinued after 3 consecutive errors. 47

Basic characteristics of eye movements in reading: Chapter 1 (Aim 1; Exp. 1) Bilingual RSC : Assessment 4 - English Oral Reading Fluency (ORF-Eng) Subtest (ORF- Eng) (WRMT 3 rd edition, Woodcock, 2011). • • Read out loud text (202 words) in increasing difficulty Formula: (202 – number of errors/reading time) * 10 48

Basic characteristics of eye movements in reading: Chapter 1 (Aim 1; Exp. 1) Bilingual RSC (HL Adults): Questionnaire • N=48 HS : 21 advanced, 27 beginners NAME Timothy Nelli Yulia Аlena Kristina Diana Inna Zoryana Nastassia Christina AGE GENDER 24 Male 19 Female 22 Female 27 29 22 20 20 20 Female Female GROUP adv adv BORN Aof Arrival Comp Speak Read How much U. S. -4 4 4 0 -30 min Russia 12 5 5 5 2 -3 hours Azerbaijan 13 5 4 5 0 -30 min Russia 5 3 3 3 0 -30 min begin begin Ukraine Russia Uzbekistan Belarus U. S 9 7 3 7 9 -- 3 4 3 3 3 5 4 1 5 3 4 4 3 2 4 2 3 4 0 -30 min 30 -60 min 0 -30 min 1 – lowest, 5 - highest 49

All tables 50

Table 2. 1. Early and late eye movement measures in reading. 51

Table 2. 2. Participant characteristics and average scores for performance on 4 reading assessment tasks. 52

Table 2. 3. Descriptive characteristics of the beginner and advanced versions of Bi. RSC 53

Table 2. 4. Comparison of basic parameters of eye movements ((i) time duration measures, (ii) probabilities of skipping or fixating the word, (iii) probability of regressions), saccade landing sites and number of fixations per word) in reading in Russian (SD in parentheses). 54

Table 3. 2. Descriptive characteristics of the child RSC. 55

Table 3. 3. Means and SD for eye-movement measures (top panel) and percentage distribution of participants comprising each of the reading strategies (SD) 56

Length and Frequency effects: confirmed 57

All Figures 58

Figure 2. 1. Means for (A) time durations measures and (B) probabilities of skipping (P 0), fixating (P 1, P 2+) and making regressions (RO, RG) by each group of speakers. 59

Figure 2. 2. High-proficiency HSs. All corpus words: Means for four time durations measures as a function of word length (A) and logarithmic word frequency (С); probabilities of skipping or fixating the word as a function of word length (B) and frequency (D). 60

Figure 2. 3. Low-proficiency HSs. All corpus words: Means for four time durations measures as a function of word length (A) and logarithmic word frequency (С); probabilities of skipping or fixating the word as a function of word length (B) and frequency (D). 61

Figure 2. 4. L 2 learners. All corpus words: Means for four time durations measures as a function of word length (A) and logarithmic word frequency (С); probabilities of skipping or fixating the word as a function of word length (B) and frequency (D). 62

64

Study 1. Results overview Basic eye-movement characteristics - conceptual 65

Individual differences in reading strategies: The graph shows how many instances of the reading strategy each reader produced. 66

Results overview: Strategy preference by group Parameter estimates for GLMMs: Probability of using of the three reading strategies by group (Bonferroni correction applied). , Fluent Intermediate Beginner Monolinguals 73. 6% (4. 8) 10. 0% (3. 4) 0. 5% (0. 34) Children 11. 0% (2. 2) 35. 7% (2. 8) 22. 1% (3. 1) Heritage Speakers 12. 2% (2. 0) 28. 8% (2. 9) 35. 1% (3. 1) L 2 learners 3. 3% (0. 96) 25. 5% (3. 8) 42. 3% (4. 3) 67

Results overview: Individual difference factors , Demographic and reading performance factors 68

Cluster analysis for each sentence 69