Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
CONTRIBUTIONS OF L1 READING SUB-SKILLS TO L2
READING DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN
LANGUAGE AMONG SCHOOL-AGED LEARNERS
Dongbo Zhang and Keiko Koda
Department of Modern Languages
Carnegie Mellon University, U.S.A.
Ab st r act
This study examined the cross-linguistic relationship in
morphological awareness in two typologically diverse languages,
Chinese and English and their relative contributions to L2 reading
comprehension among Grades 5 and 6 students in China.
Morphological awareness refers to the ability to analyze and
identify a word’s morphological constituents. As such, this ability
is believed to play a critical role in reading comprehension.
Previous research suggests that the acquisition of morphological
awareness necessitates substantial print exposure and experience.
This implies that EFL learners may have difficulty in acquiring
morphological awareness to its fullest extent. Theory of transfer
posits, however, that once developed in one language, reading subskills, including morphological awareness, become available in
learning to read in another language. This being the case, L1
morphological awareness, in principle, may compensate for
restricted L2 print exposure in promoting L2 morphological
awareness. Based on these insights, we hypothesized that (1) L2
morphological awareness would be closely related to L2
morphological awareness; (2) L1 morphological awareness is a
stronger predictor of L2 morphological awareness than L2 print
exposure; and (3) L1 morphological awareness facilitates L2
reading comprehension both directly and indirectly through L2
morphological awareness.
These hypotheses were tested by
measuring and comparing L1 and L2 morphological awareness and
L2 reading comprehension. The results provide strong empirical
support for the hypotheses. Their implications for EFL pedagogy
are discussed.
Keywords: Cross-linguistic relationship; Morphological
awareness; Morphological constituents; Theory
2
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
of transfer
INTRODUCTION
Although English is regularly taught as a foreign language (FL) in
primary schools in many countries, little has been explored how literacy skills
develop among school-age EFL learners. Because they are still in the
process of developing first language (L1) literacy skills, systematic
examinations of their second-language (L2) reading development in
conjunction with L1 reading ability should provide significant new insights
into cross-linguistic relationships in reading sub-skills development, or
“developmental interdependence” (Cummins, 1979, 1991), in L2 literacy
learning. In an effort to promote a clearer understanding of the role of L1 in
L2 learning, the present study examined the contribution of L1 reading subskills to L2 reading development among school-age children learning English
as a foreign language in China. In specific, the study explored the
relationship between L1 and L2 morphological awareness and their relative
contributions to L2 reading comprehension.
In the study, morphological awareness was operationally defined as
the ability to analyze and identify a word’s morphological constituents. The
significance of this ability lies in its capacity for enabling the learner to
segment a word into its morphological components, and in so doing,
enhancing many key operations in reading comprehension, such as identifying
the grammatical category of words, extracting partial information from
unfamiliar words, and accessing stored lexical information.
Hence,
morphological awareness is believed to be directly, and possibly causally,
related to reading ability.
Although morphological awareness develops initially through
communicative use of spoken language, it becomes progressively more
explicit and refined through encoding and decoding morphological
information in print (Nagy & Anderson, 1999; Koda, 2000, 2005).
Logically, then, it is highly improbable that L2 morphological awareness
develops sufficiently to provide presumed assistance in L2 reading
comprehension when L2 learning occurs with severely restricted print
exposure and experience. The critical question then is whether any other
resources are available in promoting L2 morphological awareness as a critical
competence supporting analytical approaches to lexical learning and
processing during reading.
A current view of transfer (Koda 2007, 2008) posits that, once
developed in one language, reading sub-skills, including morphological
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
3
awareness, become available in another language, providing substantial
facilitation in learning to read in that language. This being the case, L1 and
L2 morphological awareness should be closely related, and there should be
systematic functional connections between morphological awareness and L2
reading comprehension both within and across languages. Consequently, the
primary objective of the study was to explore both cross-linguistic and
functional relationships in morphological awareness and reading
comprehension in two typologically diverse languages, Chinese and English.
The sections that follow briefly explain the role of morphological awareness
in reading development and then describe cross-language transfer in L2
learning.
ROLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL AW ARENESS
IN LEARNING TO READ
According to the Universal Grammar of reading (Perfetti, 2003;
Perfetti & Liu, 2005), reading is embedded in two interrelated systems – a
language and its writing system. Inevitably, reading acquisition entails
making links between the two systems (Nagy & Anderson, 1999; Kuo &
Anderson, 2008). In learning to read, therefore, children in all languages
must first recognize which language elements are graphically encoded in the
writing system, and then, learn the specific ways they are encoded.
Morphological awareness contributes primarily to the latter process through
its capacity for word segmentation, which enables children to identify a
word’s morphological constituents.
Beyond the initial stages of learning to read, morphological
awareness also plays a prominent role in reading comprehension (Ku &
Anderson, 2003; Kuo & Anderson, 2008; Koda, 2005). The concept of
word segmentation makes it possible for children to identify familiar
morphological components in an unfamiliar word, allowing them to extract
partial information from the word. Under the current view of lexical
representation, moreover, the morpheme, rather than the word, is considered
the basis of lexical description. In such a view, morphemes are seen as the
basic unit in lexical access, store and retrieval (e.g., Chilant & Caramazza,
1995; Stolz & Feldman, 1995; Taft, 1991; Taft & Zhu, 1995). Clearly,
morphological awareness is essential in known word recognition and lexical
inference during reading.
Morphological awareness is a complex, multi-dimension, construct,
involving a number of facets reflecting the structural and functional
properties of morphemes in a particular language. It develops gradually over
time as its diverse facets mature at disparate rates following their own
timetables. As an illustration, English-speaking children are sensitized to
4
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
inflectional morphemes in structurally transparent words well before
schooling (Berko, 1958; Carlisle, 2003), but the productive use of
inflectional information does not occur until Grade 2 or 3 (Bear, Invernizzi,
Templeton, & Johnston, 1996). Further, the awareness of derivational
morphemes develops over a longer period of time between Grades 4 and 8
(Tyler & Nagy, 1989, 1990; Ku & Anderson, 2003). Similar developmental
disparities among diverse awareness facets have also been reported in studies
involving native Chinese speaking children (Shu & Anderson, 1999; Ku &
Anderson, 2003).
CROSS-LANGUAGE TRANSFER
Transfer has long been a major theoretical concept in L2 research.
Traditionally, transfer is seen as learners’ reliance on L1 linguistic
knowledge. Krashen (1983), for example, viewed transfer as the resultant
state stemming from learners’ falling back on old knowledge, or L1 rules,
when new knowledge is not yet sufficiently developed. Similarly, Gass and
Selinker (1983) regarded transfer as use of previously acquired linguistic
knowledge, which results in interlanguage forms. Odlin (1989) also endorsed
the general thrust of the contention that transfer manifests learners’ reliance
on L1 knowledge. He argued, “Transfer is the influence from similarities and
differences between the target language and any other language that has been
previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired” (p. 27). These views imply
that transfer occurs to compensate for insufficient L2 knowledge, ceases
once sufficient L2 linguistic knowledge is achieved; and thereafter, L1
knowledge plays a minimum role in explaining individual differences in L2
learning.
These contentions, however, are no longer uniformly endorsed.
Alternative conceptualizations consistently underscore the need for broader
definitions of transfer (August & Shanahan, 2006; Riches & Genesee, 2006).
As an illustration, transfer is defined as the ability to learn new skills by
drawing on previously acquired resources (Genesee, Lindhoim-Leary,
Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Similarly, prior learning experience is
regarded as a reservoir of knowledge, skills and abilities that is available in
learning a new language as well as literacy skills in that language (Riches &
Genesee, 2006). Under these newer conceptualizations, the research focus
has shifted from characterizing L1 influence either as negative, positive, or
neutral to identifying the resources available to learners at the outset of L2
learning.
Within the componential view of reading (Carr & Levy, 1990), recent
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
5
biliteracy studies have explored cross-linguistic relationships in a variety of
reading sub-skills, including phonological awareness (Bialystok, McBrideChang, & Luk, 2005; Branum-Martin et al., 2006; Durgunoglu, Nagy, &
Hancin, 1993; Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000; Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005),
decoding (Abu-Rabia, 1997; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunoglu,
Nagy, & Hancin, 1993; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999;
Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000), syntactic awareness (Abu-Rabia, 1995; Da
Fontoura & Siegel, 1995), and working memory (Abu-Rabia, 1995; Da
Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research on L1 reading acquisition suggests that morphological
awareness plays a critical role in reading development; and its acquisition
necessitates substantial print exposure and experience. Theory of transfer,
moreover, holds that reading sub-skills, including morphological awareness,
once developed in one language, become available in another language
through cross-linguistic transfer. These insights serve as the basic premises
of the study:
(1) Morphological awareness facilitates reading comprehension in several
important ways.
(2) The development of morphological awareness requires substantial
print exposure and experience.
(3) Notable differences – both individual and developmental – exist in L1
morphological awareness.
(4) Facets of L1 morphological awareness are available, through transfer,
in the formation of L2 morphological awareness
Based on these premises, the following hypotheses were formulated:
(1) L1 morphological awareness systematically relates to L2
morphological awareness.
(2) L1 morphological awareness contributes to the formation of L2
morphological awareness to a greater extent than L2 print exposure
and experience.
(3) L1 morphological awareness facilitates L2 reading comprehension
directly and indirectly through L2 morphological awareness.
These hypotheses were tested by measuring and comparing L1 and L2
morphological awareness and L2 reading comprehension among Grades
5 and 6 native Chinese (Mandarin) speaking children learning English as
a foreign language in China.
6
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
METHOD
Par t icip an t s
Ninety-six Grade 5 (N=45) and Grade 6 (N=51) students in two
intact classrooms participated in the study. The students attended one of the
three public schools in the central town of a small county in Northeast China.
In this region, Mandarin is used as the primary means of communication as
well as the medium of instruction in schools. Students receive formal literacy
instruction in Mandarin from Grade 1, and start learning English in Grade 3.
According to the National English Language Curriculum Standards (Ministry
of Education, 2001), English is taught for 40 minutes every day with the
primary emphasis on the simultaneous development of the four skills.
In st r um ent s
In the study, four tasks were used to measure (a) English
morphological awareness, (b) Chinese morphological awareness, (c) English
reading comprehension, and (d) nonverbal IQ. These tasks were administered
in class as part of instructional activities. In addition, a questionnaire was
distributed to parents to elicit information on students’ English print
exposure in the home, and a short survey asking about each student’s English
proficiency to the teachers who were teaching English to the participating
students at the time of data collection.
English Morphological Awareness: English morphological awareness
was measured through a morpheme recognition task, adapted from the Ku
and Anderson’s 2003 study, with minor modifications. The task was
designed to measure the ability to segment a morphologically complex word
and recognize its stem. In the task, students were presented with 20 pairs of
words, followed by yes or no. For each pair, they were asked to decide
whether the second word “comes from” the first. For example, in the paired
words, birth and birthday, students were asked whether they think birthday
comes from birth. They were then instructed to indicate the answer by
circling either yes or no. The words used in the task were selected from
those explicitly taught in the English textbooks used in the school.
Chinese Morphological Awareness: Chinese morphological
awareness was measured through the same morpheme recognition task. The
task also contained 20 pairs of words which were selected from the words
students had previously learned.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
7
English Reading Comprehension: The reading test comprised four
short passages with the mean passage length of 125 words. Each passage
was accompanied by five multiple-choice questions designed to measure
three comprehension sub-skills, including main idea detection, text-base
inference, and co-reference resolution.
To ensure that all students
understood the comprehension questions, Chinese translation was provided
for each question. In addition, Chinese translation was also provided for the
words, which were judged unfamiliar to many of the participating students
(the mean number of glossed words per passage is about 3).
English Print Exposure: Information on students’ home literacy
support and literacy-related activities was collected using a questionnaire
administered to parents. The questionnaire included three categories: (a)
print resources in the home, including the number of English books,
magazines and other print materials available at home; (b) child-independent
literacy activities involving English print materials both related and unrelated
to schoolwork; and (c) parents’ literacy activities involving English print
materials.
Raven’s Non-verbal IQ: A sub-set of the Raven’s Standard
Progressive Matrices was administered to all students to measure non-verbal
intelligence.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Rela t io n sh ip b et w e en L1 a nd L2 M or ph o log ica l
Aw ar en ess
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the scores
from the four tasks administered in the study. Not surprisingly, students in
both Grades 5 and 6 scored higher on the Chinese morphological awareness
task (M = 15.13, SD = 1.76 for Grade 5; M = 15.11, SD = 1.89 for Grade 6)
than the English task (M = 13.87, SD = 2.08 for Grade 5; M = 14.28, SD =
2.65 for Grade 6), but the means differences were far less pronounced than
had been expected. Given that the awareness facet measured in the study
(the ability to segment a morphologically complex word and recognize its
stem) is relatively early developing capacity, the strong and stable
performance on the Chinese task was anticipated. Considering the heavily
restricted input, however, it is astonishing that the students maintained
roughly the same level of performance in English.
8
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
TABLE 1
Children’s performance on the four tasks
Grade 5
M
SD
Raven’s nonverbal IQ
30.16
3.92
Chinese morphological awareness
15.13
1.76
English morphological awareness
13.87
2.08
English reading comprehension
11.76
3.26
Form atted Table
Grade 6
M
31.17
15.11
14.28
14.09
SD
2.24
1.89
2.65
3.75
To reiterate, the current view of transfer holds that once developed in
one language, reading sub-skills become available in another language.
Under this view, we hypothesized that L1 and L2 morphological awareness
would be closely interconnected. Table 2 presents the intercorrelations of all
the variables measured in the study. As evident, L1 and L2 morphological
awareness were significantly and positively correlated (r = .37, p < .01).
However, no systematic relations were found between L2 morphological
awareness and any of the English print exposure indices. Given that home
literacy support plays an important role in reading development (Shu, Li,
Anderson, Ku, & Yue, 2002), this result may seem odd. Inasmuch as
English print exposure was uniformly minimal across students, the
consistently low correlations could well be a statistical artifact resulting from
the absence of variance in L2 print exposure.
TABLE 2
Correlations among all variables
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Raven’s nonverbal IQ
English print materials
Children’s English reading
Parents’ English reading
English proficiency
English morphological
awareness
7 Chinese morphological
awareness
8 English reading
comprehension
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Bold,
All caps
5
6
7
–
.316*
-.127
.051
.086
–
.375*
.539**
.210
–
.295
.097
–
.135
–
.193
.270
.213
.081
.320**
–
.296**
.339*
-.037 .088
.312**
.372**
–
.327**
.283
.149
-.037 .480**
.381**
.327**
8
Form atted Table
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Centered
–
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
9
Fact o r s Af f e ct in g L2 Mo r ph o lo g ica l Aw ar e ne ss
Given the well-developed L1 morphological awareness and the
restricted L2 print exposure, our second hypothesis was that L1
morphological awareness would make a stronger contribution than L2 print
exposure in the formation of L2 morphological awareness. To test the
hypothesis, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed with English
morphological awareness as the criterion variable. In the analysis, the two
control variables, Raven’s IQ and Grade were first entered, followed by L2
proficiency, L2 print exposure, and L1 morphological awareness. The
analysis revealed that neither L2 proficiency nor L2 print exposure was
significant, but L1 morphological awareness was significant (F = 7.81, p <
.01), as predicted, accounting for 14.4% of the variance – more than onethird of the total variance explained – in L2 morphological awareness (see
Table 3).
TABLE 3
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting English morphological awareness
F change
R2
Adjusted R2 R2 change
Step 1: Grade
.030
.006
1.242
Step 2: Raven’s nonverbal IQ
.152
.108
.122
5.590*
Step 3: Print exposure
.225
.117
.073
1.130
Step 4: English proficiency
.231
.099
.006
.293
Step 5: Chinese morphological awareness
.375
.246
.144
7.806**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Bold,
All caps
Form atted Table
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Not
Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Narrow, 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Centered
Collectively, these results provide strong empirical support for crosslanguage transfer in L2 reading development. Given that the majority of
transfer studies have been conducted with adult L2 learners, the present
study has extended the notion of L1-based facilitation to school-age learners.
More critically, however, the present findings make a potentially significant
contribution to the much needed clarification of CALP (cognitive academic
language proficiency) – the central construct in the highly influential
Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis proposed by Cummins (1979)
nearly thirty years ago. According to Cummins, CALP is largely shared
across languages and, therefore, L1 CALP serves as the basis for developing
L2 CALP. It is generally presumed that CALP relates to literacy skills.
Beyond that, however, there is no clear consensus as to what constitutes
CALP. Over the past three decades, reading research has uncovered a
number of requisite competencies for learning to read. Given that
morphological awareness is one such requisite, this capability could be a
critical component of CALP. Should this be the case, the present finding
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
10
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
sheds substantial light on the nature and manner of L1-based facilitation in
L2 sub-skills development.
Fact o r s Af f e ct in g L2 Rea din g Com p r ehen sio n
Because morphemes provide semantic and grammatical information,
they are directly involved in text meaning construction. Morphological
awareness therefore should be closely related to reading comprehension subskills. As shown in Table 2, L2 reading comprehension was significantly
correlated with both L1 (r = .33, p < .01) and L2 morphological awareness
(r = .38, p < .01). A significant correlation was also found between L2
proficiency and reading comprehension (r = .48, p < .01). However, no
systematic relation was found between L2 reading comprehension and L2
print exposure. Here again, the uniformly minimal L2 print exposure
seemingly explains the low correlations.
Unlike morphological awareness, the two grade groups notably
differed in their reading comprehension scores (M = 11.76 for Grade 5
students and M = 14.09 for Grade 6 students). The subsequent t-test
revealed that the difference was statistically significant (t = 3.0, p < .01).
With virtually no L2 literacy support at home, we can safely assume that
students’ L2 print exposure is limited to English print materials and printrelated activities in school. One year of additional print exposure therefore
may have been sufficient for making the visible difference in reading ability
between the two grade groups.
Within the current view of transfer, our final hypothesis was that L1
morphological awareness would contribute to L2 reading comprehension
both directly and indirectly through L2 morphological awareness. The
hypothesis was tested using a hierarchical regression analysis using reading
test scores as the criterion variable. As in the previous analysis, the two
control variables (Raven’s IQ and Grade) were first entered, followed by L2
proficiency, L2 print exposure, L2 morphological awareness, and L1
morphological awareness. The analysis revealed that after removing the
variance associated with the two control variables, L2 proficiency (F =
16.67, p < .01) and L1 morphological awareness (F = 4.37, p < .05) were the
only predictors explaining significant portions of the remaining variance.
Neither L2 print exposure nor L2 morphological awareness was found
significant.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
11
TABLE 4
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting English reading comprehension
R2
Adjusted R2 R2 change F change
Step 1: Grade
.212
.194
.212
11.597**
Step 2: Raven’s nonverbal IQ
.262
.227
.050
2.817
Step 3: Print input
.344
.260
.082
1.630
Step 4: English proficiency
.544
.472
.200
16.672**
Step 5: English morphological awareness .547
.461
.003
.235
Step
6:
Chinese
morphological
.596
.506
.049
4.368*
awareness
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Given that L1 and L2 morphological awareness were similarly
correlated with L2 reading comprehension (see Table 2), it is unclear as to
why L2 morphological awareness was not significant, while L1 awareness
was significant in explaining the variance in L2 reading comprehension. One
possible explanation could be that L1 and L2 morphological awareness
scores – though derived from the same task – may reflect different
capabilities. Recall that the awareness facet measured in the study is the
ability for word segmentation, which is an early developing capacity, serving
as the functional foundation for acquiring late developing, more refined,
awareness facets. Given that L1 morphological awareness is presumably
well refined among Grades 5 and 6 students, their L1 awareness scores are
likely to be a reliable indicator of how well their morphological awareness
had been refined at the time of data collection. This perhaps explains why
the L1 awareness scores turned out a significant predictor of L2 reading
comprehension.
In light of the restricted L2 print input available to Chinese EFL
students, it is highly improbable that their L2 morphological awareness could
mature to the same extent and at the same rate as their L1 awareness. If so,
unlike the L1 scores, the L2 scores do not reflect any capabilities beyond the
segmentation ability. Knowing that segmentation is necessary but insufficient
for providing direct facilitation in reading comprehension, we would argue
that there should be little overlap in the variances in L2 morphological
awareness and L2 reading comprehension. This being the case, a possible
implication would be that L1 literacy competence is an important resource,
but insufficient in itself for supporting L2 reading development. As in L1,
the acquisition of L2 reading sub-skills, including morphological awareness,
seemingly necessitates substantial print exposure and experience in the target
language.
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Bold,
All caps
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0
cm, First line: 0 cm, Don't adjust
right indent when grid is defined, Line
spacing: single, Don't adjust space
between Latin and Asian text, Don't
adjust space between Asian text and
numbers, Tabs: 10.08 cm, Centered
12
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
In this study, we examined the role of L1 morphological awareness in
the formation of L2 morphological awareness and their relative contributions
to L2 reading development among school-age EFL students. Our analyses
demonstrated that L1 morphological awareness contributed to the formation
of L2 morphological awareness to a far greater extent than L2 print exposure
and experience; and that L1 morphological awareness was a strong predictor
of L2 reading comprehension. Viewed collectively, these results corroborate
the previous findings from cross-language transfer studies, suggesting that
L1 reading sub-skills, once acquired in one language, become available in
another, providing substantial facilitation in the development of
corresponding skills in the new language. Hence, the present findings have
extended the notion of L1-based facilitation in L2 learning to school-age
EFL learners.
Although L2 reading research has repeatedly shown cross-linguistic
relationships in a number of reading sub-skills, L1-based facilitation is not
widely recognized by EFL practitioners. Given its potential significance, it is
essential that a clearer understanding of the functional connections between
L1 and L2 reading development be promoted among language teaching
professionals – particularly those involved in pre-service teacher training,
educational policy makers, and school administrators.
Several
recommendations can be made towards this end.
It is commonly observed that L1 literacy teachers and EFL
instructors have minimal interaction professionally in schools. One possible
explanation is that the two groups of teachers typically undergo completely
different pre-service training – L1 teachers were trained in education while
EFL teachers majored in linguistics or language studies. Thus, the groups
have little in common in their training, creating a thin basis for their
professional communication. Given the magnitude of L1 involvement, it
seems essential that L1 literacy development be incorporated as an integral
component of FL teacher training.
It is equally important that schools promote regularly occurring
communication among FL teachers and L1 teachers in top-down fashion.
Even if teachers feel it desirable to interact with their colleagues, their daily
responsibilities keep them from seeking such opportunities on their own. It
would be extremely helpful, for example, if schools set aside a block of time
for teacher-initiated in-service activities wherein they can engage in
discussions of various language- and literacy-related issues.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
13
Considering that English education is regulated by the National
Curriculum Standards and similar guidelines in China and other Asian
countries, it is critical that the developmental and functional connections
between L1 and L2 literacy are underscored and their implications for FL
instruction are clearly explained in these documents. It would be highly
desirable if the National Curriculum Standards for EFL instruction specify
the expected L2 literacy skills at each grade level – not only in relation to L2
linguistic knowledge, but also in conjunction with grade-appropriate L1
literacy competence. Undoubtedly, the development of such documents
requires extensive collaborations among educators, language researchers and
school administrators.
THE AUTHORS
Dongbo Zhang is a PhD candidate in the Second Language acquisition program in the
Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University. His research interests
include second language reading and biliteracy acquisition. Before coming to the U.S. for his
PhD study, he worked as a research associate on bilingual education in Singapore and
college EFL lecturer in China.
Keiko Koda is Professor of Second Language Acquisition and Japanese in the Department
of Languages at Carnegie Mellon University. Her major research areas include second
language reading, biliteracy development, psycholinguistics, and foreign language
pedagogy. She served on the editorial boards of several major journals, including Reading
Research Quarterly, Reading and Writing, Research in Second Language Learning,
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Modern Language
Journal and TESOL Quartely. She has served as a consultant to Education Testing Service,
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, and the U.S. Department of
Education. She was also a member of National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth. She has edited and co-edited special issues of Language Learning and
Reading in Foreign Language. Her recent publications include Insights into Second
Language Reading (Cambridge University Press, 2005), Reading and Language Learning
(Blackwell, 2007) and Learning to Read across Language (Routledge, 2008).
REFERENCES
Abu-Rabia, S. (1995). Learning to read in Arabic: Reading, syntactic,
orthographic and working memory skills in normally achieving and
poor Arabic readers. Reading Psychology, 16 (4), 351-394.
14
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
Abu-Rabia, S. (1997). Reading in Arabic orthography: The effect of vowels
and context on reading accuracy of poor and skilled native Arabic
readers in reading paragraphs, sentences, and isolated words. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 465-482.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in secondlanguage learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on
language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words
their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling
instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150177.
Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language
proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 580-590.
Branum-Martin, L., Mehta, P. D., Fletcher, J.M., Carlson, C. D., Ortiz, A.,
Carlo, M., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Bilingual phonological awareness:
Multilevel
construct
validation
among
Spanish-speaking
kindergarteners in traditional bilingual education classrooms. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 170-181.
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A
commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-322.
Carr, T., & Levy, B. (1990). Writing system background and second
language reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by
native speaker-readers of Chinese. In T. Carr & B. Levy (Eds.),
Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp.
375-421). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chilant, D., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Where is morphology and how is it
processed? The case of written word recognition. In L. B. Feldman
(Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 55-76).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational
development of bilingual children. Review of Educational
Research, 49 (2), 222-251.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
15
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language
proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language
processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic and working
memory skills of bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 139–153.
Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin, B. J. (1993). Cross-language
transfer of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 453-465.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.) (1983). Language transfer in language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (Eds.)
(2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of
research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the
concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1-30.
Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). The concurrent development of word
recognition skills in English and Farsi. Language Learning, 49,
183-217.
Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 21 (3), 297-320.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading: A Crosslinguistic Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints
on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57
(1), 1-44.
Koda, K. (2008). Contributions of prior literacy experience to learning to
read in a second language. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.),
Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships
in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 68-96).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krashen, S. D. (1983). Newmark’s “ignorance hypothesis” and current
second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker
(Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135-153).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
16
Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda
Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading
Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners
Ku, Y.-M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological
awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 399-422.
Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2008). Conceptual and methodological issues in
comparing metalinguistic awareness across languages. In K. Koda
& A. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages (pp. 3967). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ministry of Education. (2001). English language curriculum standards.
Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness and
literacy acquisition in different languages. In D. A. Wagner, R. C.
Venezky, & B. V. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An International
Handbook (pp. 155-160). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influences in
language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The Universal Grammar of reading. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 7 (1), 3-24.
Perfetti. C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning:
Comparisons across and within writing systems. Reading and
Writing, 18, 193-210.
Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Cross-linguistic and cross-modal aspects
of literacy development. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W.
Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language
learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64-108). NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Shu, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Learning to read Chinese: The
development of metalinguistic awareness. In A. Inhoff, J. Wang &
H. C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese scripts: A Cognitive analysis
(pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shu, H., Li, W., Anderson, R. C., Ku, Y.-M., & Yue, X. (2002). The role of
home-literacy environment in learning to reading Chinese. In W. Li,
J. S. Gaffney, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Chinese children’s reading
acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues (pp. 207-224).
Boston: Kluwer.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008
17
Stolz, J. A., & Feldman, L. B. (1995). The role of orthographic and semantic
transparency of the base morpheme in morphological processing. In
L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language
Processing (pp. 109-129). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the Mental Lexicon. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. (1995). The representation of bound morphemes in the
lexicon: A Chinese study. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological
Aspects of Language Processing (pp. 109-129). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational
morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649-667.
Tyler, A. & Nagy, W. (1990). Use of English derivational morphology
during reading. Cognition, 36, 17-34.
Wade-Woolley, L & Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in
the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,
4, 295-311.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy
acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition,
97, 67-88.