Inhibition or Compensation? A Multidimensional Comparison of Reading Processes in Dutch and English

Abstract

This study examined two competing hypotheses about second language reading processes: the inhibition hypothesis and the compensation hypothesis. Although the ideas expressed in these hypotheses have been reiterated in the literature, previous to this study, they had seldom been investigated systematically. The inhibition hypothesis states that in foreign language reading, the lack of fluent linguistic processes inhibits the amount of attention devoted to conceptual processes (e.g., Koda, 1996; Segalowitz, Watson, & Segalowitz, 1995). In contrast, the compensation hypothesis states that readers in a foreign language are able to skirt around comprehension problems by actually devoting more attention to global, conceptual reading processes.Using the think‐aloud method, we compared the reading strategies of 22 Dutch high school students in Dutch (their first language [L1]) and English (their foreign language [FL]). Whereas previous studies have confined themselves to grouping strategies into categories along a single dimension, the present study used a three‐dimensional classification scheme that entails the following: Orientation of Processing (i.e., whether strategies are directed toward content or language); Type of Processing (i.e., whether strategies involve regulating the reading process, processing the meaning of the text, or rereading the text); and linguistic Domain of Processing (i.e., whether strategies are directed toward text elements at levels below, at, or above the clause). This multidimensional perspective allowed a comparison of reading strategies in the L1 and FL to be made with notable precision. By separating distinctions that were conflated in previous studies, we provide a greater degree of theoretical clarity concerning the nature of L1 and FL reading processes.The findings of the study call into question whether either the inhibition hypothesis or the compensation hypothesis provides an adequate representation of FL reading processes—at least in the context examined. On the one hand, there was little evidence that readers focused less on global text content in the FL. On the other hand, there was no evidence that readers compensated for language problems by focusing more on global text content in English. Instead, the findings suggest a model of FL reading processes in which readers are able to compensate for language problems by focusing attention on them, without this extra focus on linguistic processes necessarily being detrimental to global reading processes.