Reading and Language Learning: Crosslinguistic Constraints On Second Language Reading Development

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333
Reading and Language Learning:

Crosslinguistic Constraints on Second
Language Reading Development
Keiko Koda
Carnegie Mellon University
The ultimate goal of reading is to construct text meaning based on visually

encoded information. Essentially, it entails converting print into language and
then to the message intended by the author. It is hardly accidental, therefore,
that, in all languages, reading builds on oral language competence and that
learning to read uniformly requires making links between a language and its
writing system. As a system of communication, moreover, languages vary in
their meaning-making conventions and methods of signaling those conventions.
Writing systems also vary in what they encode and how they end it. It is thus
essential to clarify how reading subskills—and their development—are altered
by the properties of a particular language and its writing system. A small but
growing body of evidence suggests that systematic variations do exist in literacy
learning and processing in diverse languages.
These variations have critical implications for theories of second language
(L2) reading because, unlike first language (L1) reading, it involves two lan-
guages. The dual-language involvement implies continual interactions between
the two languages as well as incessant adjustments in accommodating the dis-
parate demands each language imposes. For this reason, L2 reading is crosslin-
guistic and, thus, inherently more complex than L1 reading. To deal with these
complexities, L2 reading research must incorporate three basic facts about read-
ing development in both theory formation and empirical validation: (a) reading
is a complex, multifaceted construct, comprising a number of subskills; (b)
the acquisition of each subskill necessitates distinct linguistic knowledge; and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Keiko Koda, Department of Mod-
ern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, 160 Baker Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Internet:
kkoda@andrew.cmu.edu
Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 1

C 2007 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
Koda Reading and Language Learning
(c) in L2 reading, subskills development involves two languages. Consequently,

the primary objective of this article is to clarify—through a systematic synthe-
sis of research in reading and L2 acquisition—the specific ways in which L2
reading is constrained by language-specific demands both within and across
languages.
The synthesis opens with a discussion of how diverse linguistic knowledge
contributes to the development of reading subskills. Reading and linguistic
knowledge are both complex constructs, so their functional connections cannot
be fully understood unless their components are isolated and the functions of
each are clearly identified. Therefore, reading needs to be dissected into its
major operations, and the linguistic requisites for each can then be examined.
The subsequent section briefly describes theories explaining the cognitive
mechanisms through which linguistic knowledge and reading skills are ac-
quired. In these theories, learning—be it of language or reading—is viewed
as the process of detecting, abstracting, and internalizing structural regularities
implicit in input. As such, input and experience are regarded as the key determi-
nants of learning outcomes—that is, what is learned and how well it is learned.
It is essential, therefore, that the precise nature of experience associated with a
particular instance of learning be clarified.
The concept of reading universals is critical in this regard because it speci-
fies the requisites for learning to read, imposed on all learners, in all languages,
and in so doing, it sets the limits on possible variations in learning-to-read
experiences across languages. Therefore, systematic comparisons of how the
requisite tasks are accomplished in diverse languages make it possible to iden-
tify the language-specific demands imposed by the properties of a particular
language and its writing system. Accurate descriptions of such demands and
their resulting variations will permit conceptual explorations of how L2 reading
development is constrained by the two languages involved.
Metalinguistic awareness refers to the ability to identify, analyze, and manip-
ulate language forms. As such, it relates directly and centrally to the core task of
learning to read (i.e., making links between a language and its writing system).
Specifically, the significance of metalinguistic awareness lies in its capacity for
enabling learners to segment words into their phonological and morphological
constituents, helping them deduce how spoken language elements are mapped
onto the graphic symbols that represent them.
Finally, within the experience-based view of learning, the mechanism of
transfer is explained. Such elucidation is useful because it clarifies how reading
subskills, developed in one language, are incorporated in learning to read in
another language. Despite the general acceptance of transfer in L2 learning,

there is little consensus as to what constitutes “transfer” and how it transpires.

In the absence of a well-articulated theory, many critical issues of transfer
remain unexplored. Within the proposed view of transfer, empirical studies
investigating the impacts of literacy experiences in both L1 and L2 are examined
and their collective implications discussed.
Linguistic Knowledge in Reading Development

Traditionally, two diametrically opposing views of reading have dominated
reading research: One regards reading as an indivisible whole; and the other
regards it as a constellation of distinct components. Goodman (1967, 1969), as
a proponent of the holistic view of reading, contended that learning to read is a
natural process during the course of human development. Because language is
learned as a whole through communication, and communicative use of language
is intrinsic in reading, reading is learned as a whole and, therefore, should be
treated as a whole. In contrast, the componential view postulates that reading
is a constellation of distinct capabilities, which can be isolated for inspection
either individually or in tandem. Because individual differences exist in virtually
all facets of reading competence, it is essential to determine which particular
variations are centrally related to comprehension performance.
Of the two, the componential view offers definite advantages because read-
ing difficulties might be attributable to a deficiency in a single skill or to a
combination of multiple deficiencies. A clear grasp of the multilayered relation-
ships among reading subskills is necessary to identify the sources of reading
difficulties. This clarification, moreover, is critical in examining the specific
contributions of linguistic knowledge to reading acquisition. Because diverse
subskills necessitate distinct linguistic knowledge, uncovering their functional
interconnections is virtually impossible unless the constructs’ respective facets
are isolated and their functions clearly understood.
Components of Reading
The component skills approach, proposed by Carr and Levy (1990), seeks to
identify the cognitive skills underlying reading and then to compare their relative
contributions to overall reading performance. Several fundamental suppositions
underlie this approach (Carr, Brown, Vavrus, & Evans, 1990). Reading, for ex-
ample, is the product of a complex information-processing system, involving
a constellation of closely related mental operations. Each operation is theoreti-
cally distinct and empirically separable, and each serves an identifiable function.
The component skills jointly facilitate perception, comprehension, and memory
3 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

of visually coded language. Thus, the primary goal of the approach is to illu-
minate the full scope of cognitive skills underlying reading and, in so doing, to
examine their functional and developmental interconnections.
On the assumption that successful comprehension is achieved through the
integrative interaction of extracted text information and a reader’s prior knowl-
edge, in this synthesis, reading is considered to involve three major compo-
nents: (a) decoding (extracting linguistic information directly from print); (b)
text-information building (integrating the extracted information into phrases,
sentences, and paragraphs); and (c) reader-model construction (synthesizing the
amalgamated text information with prior knowledge). Because diverse facets
of linguistic knowledge are differentially involved in these operations, their
contributions are discussed separately for each operation.
Linguistic Knowledge in Decoding

Orthographic Knowledge
Fluent reading requires rapid and effortless access to word meanings. It might
seem that good readers recognize many words instantly and access their mean-
ings and sounds holistically without processing individual letters. In actuality,
however, word recognition studies have repeatedly shown that skilled English
readers engage in analyzing and manipulating word-internal elements, such as
letters and letter clusters (e.g., Ehri, 1998; Shankweiler & Liberman, 1972).
Competent readers are also more adept at pronouncing both individual letters
and nonsense letter-strings (e.g., Hogaboam & Perfetti, 1978; Siegel & Ryan,
1988; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). In essence, seamless word recog-
nition performance is not attributable to whole-word retrievals but, rather, to
internalized knowledge of one’s writing system—sound-symbol relationships,
in particular (e.g., Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1994, 1998; Seidenberg & McClel-
land, 1989). Orthographic knowledge thus underlies the effortless extraction of
phonological and morphological information from a printed word. Moreover,
once acquired, orthographic knowledge becomes a powerful mnemonic device
that “bonds the written forms of specific words to their pronunciation in mem-
ory” (Ehri, 1998, p. 15). Such a device is of vital importance particularly in
phonologically deep orthographies wherein sounds and symbols do not form
regular, reliable relationships.
Phonological Knowledge
Phonological decoding is the processes involved in accessing, storing, and ma-
nipulating phonological information (Torgesen & Burgess, 1998). Given that
reading builds on spoken language competence, decoding efficiency is cru-
cial, particularly in the initial stages of learning to read, because it enables

learners to access the stored linguistic knowledge accumulated through oral

communication prior to formal literacy instruction. Studies have consistently
showed that poor readers uniformly are less efficient in phonological process-
ing (Stanovich, 2000) and that their deficiencies tend to be “domain-specific”—
that is, weak phonological skills are neither related nor attributable to factors in
other domains (Share & Stanovich, 1995). Phonological information extraction
requires segmenting spoken words into their phonological constituents, so the
acquisition of this skill is substantially facilitated by children’s understanding
of the patterns of speech sounds. In fact, phonological deficits are a common
attribute of weak readers in typologically diverse languages, including Arabic
(Abu-Rabia, 1995), Portuguese (Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995), Chinese (So &
Siegel, 1997; Zhang & Perfetti, 1993), and Japanese (Kuhara-Kojima, Hatano,
Saito, & Haebara, 1996).
Vocabulary Knowledge
Successful comprehension is strongly related to knowledge of individual
word meanings. Consistently high correlations between vocabulary knowl-
edge and reading comprehension have been reported in a number of studies
(e.g., Alderson & Urquhart, 1985; Anderson & Freebody, 1983; Carroll, 1971;
Davis, 1968; Koda, 1988; Qian, 1998). The dominant interpretation of this re-
lationship is that vocabulary knowledge enables reading comprehension. The
view is endorsed by the notion of vocabulary threshold (i.e., the boundary be-
tween having and not having sufficient knowledge for text comprehension).
Studies testing such thresholds demonstrate that for comprehension to occur
during unassisted reading, the majority of text words (roughly 98%) must be
known (Carver, 1994, 2000; Hu & Nation, 2000). More direct support comes
from instructional studies, which, despite their diverse approaches, have con-
sistently showed that teaching how to learn words generates gains in reading
comprehension (Beck, McKeown, & Omanson, 1987; National Reading Panel,
2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).
There are, however, other interpretations of the close connection between
vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Koda, 2005). One such in-
terpretation is that the two are functionally interdependent, mutually enhancing
their respective developments. As an illustration, native-English-speaking chil-
dren not only encounter vast numbers of printed words (roughly 88,000 distinct
word families) during their school years but also learn many of them (Nagy &
Anderson, 1984). Nagy, Herman, and Anderson (1985) contended “incidental
learning from context during free reading is the major mode of vocabulary ac-
quisition during the school years, and the volume of experience with written

language, interacting with reading comprehension ability, is the major determi-

nant of vocabulary growth” (1985, p. 234). Because incidental word learning
requires inferring word meanings based on local text information, its success
depends on the ability to build local text meaning. Thus, the expansion of vo-
cabulary knowledge during the school years and beyond is greatly assisted by
reading ability.
Morphological Knowledge
Morphemes are the smallest meaning-bearing unit, serving as the constituents
of words. According to Nagy and Anderson (1984), roughly 60% of the new
words children encounter in printed school material are structurally transpar-
ent, morphologically complex words, such as “fire-fight-er” and “un-lady-like.”
This implies that the meaning of at least half of the new words could be de-
duced by analyzing a word’s morphological constituents. Morphological analy-
sis thus bolsters the capacity for identifying familiar components in an unfamil-
iar word, thereby allowing learners to extract partial information from familiar
parts. Without such competence, lexical inferencing would be seriously ham-
pered, making word learning exceedingly challenging (Ku & Anderson, 2003;
Verhoeven & Carlisle, 2006).
Experimental studies have consistently suggested that: skilled readers are
adept at morphological analysis and decomposition (e.g., Chilant & Caramazza,
1995; Fowler & Liberman, 1995; Stolz & Feldman, 1995; Taft, 1991; Taft &
Zhu, 1995); high-frequency affixes greatly facilitate recognition of multimor-
phemic, low-frequency, words (e.g., Katz, Rexer, & Lukatela, 1991; Kelliher
& Henderson, 1990); and lexical decision-making is greatly facilitated when
target words are preceded by presentation of their morphological relatives (e.g.,
Feldman & Bentin, 1994; Fowler, Napps, & Feldman, 1985). Similar results are
available in studies involving young learners, showing that poor readers commit
far more errors of affix omissions in their writing and speaking (e.g., Duques,
1989; Rubin, 1991) and that the efficient use of morphological information
during sentence processing distinguishes competent and less competent high
school readers (e.g., Tyler & Nagy, 1989, 1990). These findings confirm readers’
consistent engagement in morphological analysis/decomposition during lexical
processing, as well as the important role that morphological knowledge plays
in the extraction and integration of information in print.
Linguistic Knowledge in Text-Information Building

Syntactic Knowledge
Sentence comprehension entails incremental integration of lexical information
in such a way that an integrated “chunk” reflects the overall meaning of larger

linguistic units, such as phrases and clauses. The integration process, often
referred to as “syntactic parsing,” involves two major operations: phrase con-
struction through lexical-information integration, and case assignments to the
constructed phrases. To illustrate, the sentence “Nancy tapped the man with the
cane” allows two interpretations regarding the cane holder. If the phrase “with
the cane” is taken as a modifier of the verb “tapped,” Nancy is the cane holder.
If, on the other hand, the phrase is interpreted to modify “the man,” the cane
should be in his hand. Hence, decisions regarding phrase attachment have major
semantic consequences, and syntactic knowledge is integral to this process.
Despite the obvious significance of syntactic parsing, research has mainly
focused on the mechanisms and principles governing “parser” behaviors rather
than individual differences in syntactic processing or their impacts on com-
prehension. Heavily influenced by linguistic theories emphasizing modular
language organization, parsing research operates under the following premises:
(a) Knowledge of syntactic structures develops according to its own biological
clock; (b) because syntactic knowledge is “prewired,” syntactic complexity has
no impact on its acquisition; and (c) much of the primary linguistic system
already has been acquired before formal literacy instruction begins. Empirical
studies, in fact, demonstrate that children as young as three can comprehend and
reconstruct complex structures, such as restrictive relative clauses and subject-
verb inversion in yes-no questions (e.g., Crain & Nakayama, 1987; Hamburger
& Crain, 1982).
Little variance is thus presumed in syntactic knowledge among children
with normal speech development. In this view, therefore, reading problems are
not attributed to deficiency in syntactic knowledge among normally achieving
children (Crain & Shankweiler, 1988). Reflecting this assumption, L1 reading
research has given far less attention to syntactic knowledge than to other lin-
guistic domains. In point of fact, this knowledge was not even included as a
focal topic for intensive analysis of the National Reading Panel (2000). In short,
syntactic knowledge is essential for sentence comprehension, but it appears to
play a minor role in explaining comprehension variance in L1 reading because
this knowledge does not vary greatly among normally achieving L1 readers.
Obviously, this is not true with L2 readers. Syntactic parsing varies from
one language to another, so L2 learners must learn how phrases are constructed
and cases are assigned to the constructed phrases in a new language. Moreover,
there is little consensus regarding the extent to which the acquisition of syntac-
tic knowledge among L2 learners is assisted by innate linguistic capacity (Gass
& Schacter, 1989). Hence, it seems legitimate to assume that substantial vari-
ance exists in syntactic knowledge among L2 learners. It has been reported, in

fact, that syntactic knowledge significantly contributes to reading performance

among school-age L2 learners (e.g., Nagy, McClure, & Mir, 1997; Verhoeven,
1990).
Knowledge of Discourse Markers
To build coherent text representations, locally assembled information must be
integrated across sentences. Several distinct cohesive devices are used to achieve
text coherence. “Connectives,” for example, assist coherence building by link-
ing information in two adjacent sentences. Their main function is to express
the underlying semantic relation between the two sentences. “Coreference” is
another system used for building text coherence. For example, linguistic ele-
ments, such as pronouns, can be interpreted only through references to other
parts of a text. Because coreference is functionally dependent on linguistic ele-
ments presented in other parts of text, it prompts readers to look elsewhere for
interpretation. Although knowledge of these and other discourse markers facil-
itates text comprehension, it should be noted that their acquisition and use are
heavily dependent on developmental constraints and substantial text processing
experience.
A considerable number of studies, with both adults and children, have in-
vestigated individual differences in coherence building and their relation to
text comprehension. Their results suggest that knowledge of coherence de-
vices differs considerably among native-English-speaking children (e.g., Garner
et al., 1986), that it is developmental in nature (e.g., Garner et al; Olhausen &
Roller, 1988), that efforts to increase the structural salience of a text generally fa-
cilitates comprehension (e.g., Anderson & Davison, 1988; Beck & Dole, 1992),
and that explicit training in text coherence awareness frequently improves text
comprehension and memory (e.g., Pearson & Fielding, 1991).
Text-Structure Knowledge
A text’s surface structure offers a variety of reliable clues signaling coherence
relations among text elements. Significant elements often are placed in promi-
nent text locations to highlight their relative weight, and they are connected
with other text segments in detectable ways (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000). In
English expositions, for example, main ideas tend to appear at the beginning of
a segment, and the final element typically summarizes the text content, leading
to the resulting conclusions. Knowledge of these and other organizational cues
can provide substantial facilitation in identifying, reinforcing, and retaining a
text’s main points. Explicit demonstrations of text organization generally im-
prove text comprehension (e.g., Baumann & Bergeron, 1993; Buss, Ratliff, &
Irion, 1985).

It is important to note, however, that structural organization varies widely

across text genres. Moreover, a clear understanding of such genre-specific
structural properties necessitates broad experience with diverse text types.
Text structure studies repeatedly show that awareness of text structures cor-
relates with amount of schooling (e.g., Danner, 1976; Garner et al., 1986) and
that explicit text-structure training improves text comprehension (e.g., Meyer,
Brandt, & Bluth, 1980; National Reading Panel, 2000). These findings suggest
that although knowledge of text-structure enhances text-information building,
its acquisition occurs only through substantial reading experience, and for-
mal training can expedite the process by directing attention to specific text
features.
Linguistic Knowledge in Reader-Model Building

A schema is an abstract knowledge structure (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). It
consists of generalized information abstracted from a variety of instances and
denotes the relationships among their component elements. Such structured
understanding provides conceptual scaffolding for organizing and interpret-
ing newly encountered experiences. In the strong version of schema theory,
schemata are regarded as the element responsible for suppressing the activation
of irrelevant information, predisposing a reader to interpret input in certain
fixed ways. The theory thus explains that variations in text interpretation, among
readers with diverse real-life experiences and their consequential knowledge of
the world, are attributable to this sort of top-down conceptualization. Hence,
the theory’s core contention is that background knowledge not only affects the
process of local meaning construction but also alters the resulting global text
representation.
Such strong top-down explanations, however, are not universally supported
(Kintsch, 1994, 1998). In his Construction-Integration model, for example,
Kintsch (1998) posited that knowledge activation is “an uncontrolled, bottom-
up process, determined only by the strength of the associations between items in
long-term memory and the text” (1994, p. 733). The model thus renounces the
possibility that cognitive structures, such as schemata, override explicit text in-
formation. Kintsch, moreover, contended that irrelevant information in memory
is indeed activated by text input during propositional analysis but quickly deac-
tivated when it fails to satisfy the constraints (e.g., syntactic, semantic, and prag-
matic constraints) imposed by the remainder of the text. Kintsch’s model, conse-
quently, offers a different explanation of why less skilled readers are more prone
to incomplete understanding and misinterpretation; namely their local-meaning
construction skills are sufficiently strong to create necessary constraints, thus

permitting irrelevant information to remain active during the integration pro-

cess. Obviously, reader-model construction operates on locally assembled text
segments; therefore, global text comprehension is severely impaired by inaccu-
rate and/or incomplete local text information. Thus, even though reader-model
building is mostly conceptual, involving the least amount of linguistic process-
ing, it still is affected—indirectly but seriously—by linguistic knowledge.
To summarize, reading entails a number of component operations, each
necessitating distinct linguistic knowledge. To understand crosslinguistic vari-
ations in literacy learning and processing, it is essential to clarify precisely how
the acquisition of each subskill is constrained by the demands imposed by the
specific properties of a particular language.
Mechanisms of Learning
Psycholinguistic theories hold that linguistic knowledge emerges from abstract-
ing regularities implicit in input. In Functionalist approaches, for example lan-
guage is regarded as a set of relationships between forms and functions (Van
Valin, 1991), and language learning is viewed as the process of internalizing
these relationships (MacWhinney & Bates, 1989). Thus, their central claim is
that language acquisition is driven by communicative functions of language and
achieved through cumulative use of language in communication. By relating
learning outcomes to the functional properties of language, this view explains
why systematic variations occur in the internalized relationships both across
learners and across languages.
The Functionalist view alone, however, cannot adequately explain how
recurrence of corresponding forms and functions in input is detected, ab-
stracted, and internalized. In order to clarify how form-function relationships
are learned and assimilated, an additional theory is necessary. Connectionism is
one such theory, offering plausible explanations of how form-function relation-
ships emerge. Its main contention is that the internalization of such relationships
can occur through cumulative experience of mapping between corresponding
forms and functions. The more frequently particular patterns of form-function
mappings are experienced, the stronger the associative linkages holding the cor-
responding elements together. The theory thus describes learning as a gradual
transition from deliberate efforts to automatic execution, and its outcome as a
dynamic, ever-changing state, rather than a static entity. Consequently, the inter-
nalization of a particular form-function relationship can be recognized as such
when its mapping becomes “automated”—that is, nondeliberate, nonvolitional
activation initiated through input (Logan, 1988).

It should be noted, moreover, that the theory makes no distinction between

language learning and other domains of learning, or between knowledge ac-
quisition and skills development. Thus, the theory is capable of explaining
how reading skills emerge from input exposure and experience. Within the
Connectionist premises, Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) explained how
orthographic knowledge develops in native English speakers. They define ortho-
graphic knowledge as “an elaborate matrix of correlations among letter patterns,
phonemes, syllables, and morphemes” (p. 525), contending that its acquisition
involves the formation of interletter associations through cumulative exposure
to visual word input. The more frequently a particular letter sequence is ex-
perienced, the stronger the associations among the letters in the sequence. For
example, when the letter “t” appears at the initial position in a word, the letter
most likely to be activated is “h,” simply because the probability that “t” will
be followed by “h” is 50 times higher than that for any other letter (Adams,
1990). Ultimately, it is the connection strength of this sort that supports speedy
effortless mappings among graphemes, phonemes, and morphemes during
decoding.
The input-driven, experience-based account holds that learning is proba-
bilistic in that its outcomes can be explained primarily through statistical prob-
abilities, thereby underscoring the role of input in such probabilistic learning.
According to Ellis (2002), “‘rules’ of language, at all levels of analysis, are
structural regularities that emerge from learners’ lifetime analysis of the distri-
butional characteristics of the language input” (p. 144). Moreover, such analysis
is greatly facilitated by regularities in one-to-one correspondences between the
co-occurring elements. Regularity effects in literacy learning and processing
are well established. For example, regularly-spelled words (e.g., “hint”) are pro-
nounced faster and more accurately than irregularly-spelled words (e.g., “pint”).
Similarly, children learning to read in highly regular orthographies (e.g., Span-
ish, Serbo-Croatian, Turkish, Italian) are more adept at reading and spelling
words than age-matched children learning to read in less regular orthographies
(e.g., Ellis & Hopper, 2001; Goswami, Gombert, & de Berrera, 1998; Oney &
Durgunoglu, 1997).
In sum, the input-driven theory posits that language learning and process-
ing are closely aligned with input exposure and experience and therefore, their
outcomes are largely determined by the amount of experience as well as the
salient properties of input. Within this theory, reading acquisition can be de-
fined as the process of internalizing particular patterns of mappings involving
language elements and graphic symbols. This being the case, reading develop-
ment should be heavily constrained by both what is to be mapped (universal

mapping requirements) and how it is mapped (language-specific mapping re-

quirements). These constraints are described more fully in the subsequent
sections.
Universal and Language-Specific Constraints

on Reading Development
Reading Universals
According to the universal grammar of reading proposed by Perfetti and col-
leagues (Perfetti, 2003, Perfetti & Liu, 2005, Perfetti & Dunlap, in press), read-
ing is the dynamic pursuit embedded in two interrelated systems: a language and
the writing system that encodes the language. Inevitably, reading acquisition
requires a linkage between the two systems. Therefore, in learning to read, chil-
dren, in all languages, must first recognize which language elements are directly
encoded in the writing system (the general mapping principle) and then deduce
how they are encoded (the mapping details).
Although the linking requirement is universally imposed, how it is accom-
plished varies across languages. As an illustration, in learning the general map-
ping principle, children learning to read English must understand that each
letter represents a distinct sound—either a consonant or a vowel (the alphabetic
principle)—and then gradually work out the details of sound-symbol corre-
spondences through print decoding and encoding experience. Although the
same realization (the alphabetic principle) is also required of children learning
to read Korean, they must also realize that individual symbols must be packed
into syllable blocks and then learn the specific ways in which syllable blocks are
formed. In contrast, children learning to read Chinese must first recognize that
each symbol (character) corresponds with the meaning and the sound of one
whole morpheme (the general mapping principle) and, subsequently, learn how
single-unit characters are combined to form compound characters and how
both single-unit and compound characters are combined to form compound
(multiple-character) words.
Clarification of the universally imposed learning-to-read requirements is
essential for L2 reading research. The distinction between general mapping
principles and mapping details provides a basis for conceptualizing precisely
how prior literacy experience facilitates learning to read in a L2. To grasp the
general mapping principle, children must gain the basic insights that print re-
lates to speech; that speech can be segmented into a sequence of sounds; and
that the segmented sounds correspond with graphic symbols in the writing
system. Because none of these insights involves language-specific details, once

developed in one language, they should be readily available and fully functional
in subsequent literacy in another language. This, however, is not necessarily the
case for the mapping details, because they are language-specific, varying across
languages. Therefore, their acquisition necessitates substantial print input and
experience in the language in which literacy is learned. What is common across
languages in this requirement lies only in the requirement itself. Literacy ex-
perience in one language fosters an explicit understanding of what is to be
accomplished in the requisite task of learning the mapping details. Prior expe-
rience with this task makes learners more reflective and strategic about the task,
thus expediting the process of deducing how the writing system functions in a
new language.
All in all, learning to read entails systematic deductions of how spoken lan-
guage elements—phonology and morphemes, specifically—are mapped onto
the graphic symbols representing them. Predictably, such deductions can be
facilitated by metalinguistic awareness—the ability to analyze and manipulate
language forms. The sections that follow describe the role of metalingusitic
awareness in learning to read.
Metalinguisitic Awareness in Reading Acquisition

Metalinguistic awareness is a multidimensional construct, consisting of a num-
ber of facets, which can be defined in conjunction with various structural
features of language (e.g., Adams, 1990; Stahl & Murray, 1994; Yopp, 1988).
Bialystok (2001, p. 123) described metalinguistic awareness as an explicit rep-
resentation of “the abstract structure that organizes sets of linguistic rules
without being directly instantiated in any of them.” Although such insights
evolve through learning and using a particular language, metalinguistic aware-
ness is distinct from linguistic knowledge in that it implies an understanding
of language in its most fundamental and abstract properties, independent of
surface form variations. For example, among English-speaking children, syn-
tactic awareness can be understood as the realization that the order in which
words are presented determines sentence meaning. An abstract notion of this
sort contrasts with a more specific knowledge of the canonical word order
(subject-verb-object) in English sentences.
The utility of metalinguistic awareness lies in its capacity for enabling chil-
dren to segment words into their constituents. Word segmentation is vital in
learning to read because it involves learning to map among sublexical units
(e.g., phonemes, syllables, and morphemes). Over the past two decades, the
role of metalinguistic awareness in reading acquisition has been studied ex-
tensively. Evidence from research focusing on phonological awareness has led

to the conviction that to master an alphabetic script, children must recognize

that words can be divided into sequences of phonemes and also they must
acquire the ability to analyze a word’s internal structure in order to identify
its phonemic constituents. Early reading studies with native-English-speaking
children repeatedly show that sensitivity to the phonological structure of spoken
words is directly related to their ability to read and spell words (e.g., Stahl &
Murray, 1994; Stanovich, 2000; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984;
Yopp, 1988), that phonological segmentation capacity is a powerful predic-
tor of reading success among early- and middle-grade students (e.g., Bryant,
MacLean, & Bradley, 1990; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986), and that reading
progress is significantly enhanced by phonological awareness training (e.g.,
Bradley & Bryant, 1991).
The function of morphological awareness in reading development also has
been examined. Whereas phonological awareness mainly contributes to the
learning of general mapping principles, morphological awareness facilitates
the development of mapping details through its capacity for enabling chil-
dren to segment words into their morphological constituents. Independent of
phonological awareness, the ability for morphological segmentation has been
found to be a reliable predictor of reading achievement (e.g., Carlisle, 1995;
Carlisle & Katz, 2006; Carlisle & Nomanbhoy, 1993; Fowler & Liberman,
1995).
In addition to semantic information, morphemes provide phonological and
syntactic information. Morphological awareness, therefore, also plays a promi-
nent role in reading well beyond the initial stages of learning to read. For
example, morphological segmentation, as described earlier, enables readers to
identify familiar elements in unfamiliar words, thus promoting lexical inference
during comprehension. Reflecting its multidimensionality, moreover, morpho-
logical awareness evolves gradually over time as its diverse facets mature at
disparate rates. As an illustration, children acquiring English are sensitized to
inflectional morphemes in structurally transparent words well before schooling
starts (Berko, 1958; Carlisle, 2003), but the productive use of inflectional infor-
mation does not occur until grade two or three (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, &
Johnston, 1996). The awareness of derivational morphemes is a late-developing
facet, emerging between grades 4 and 8 (Ku & Anderson, 2003; Tyler & Nagy,
1989, 1990). Hence, the maturation of morphological awareness is subject to
general developmental constraints, and it is also aligned with the general prop-
erties of the printed words to which children are dominantly exposed at different
ages.

Crosslinguistic Variations in Metalinguistic Awareness

and Learning to Read
Although the early phases of literacy acquisition depend on children’s rudi-
mentary understanding of structural regularities, the initial sensitivity is re-
fined progressively through print encoding and decoding experience (e.g.,
Bowey & Francis, 1991; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Tolchinsky,
2003; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). In this respect, literacy and metalinguistic
awareness—particularly those facets directly related to the extraction of linguis-
tic information—are developmentally interdependent, mutually enhancing their
refinements. This reciprocity gives rise to two major implications: (a) Metalin-
guistic awareness evolves as a result of accommodating the specific properties
of a particular language and its writing system and therefore, (b) its resulting
form varies systematically across languages. Thus, although some awareness
facets are language independent, most others are attuned to the properties of
the language in which literacy is learned and, thus, are language-specific.
Such variations have been reported in studies involving children learning to
read in diverse languages. For example, Korean children develop sensitivity to
both syllables and phonemes, and phoneme and syllable manipulation skills are
equally strong predictors of their word reading ability (McBride-Chan, Wagner,
Muse, Chow, & Shu, 2005). Their phonological awareness clearly reflects the
dual-unit (syllable and phoneme) representations in the Hangul script, wherein
the symbols, each representing a distinct phoneme, must be packed into blocks
to form syllables. In consonantal Hebrew, children develop stronger sensitivity
to consonants than vowels (Geva, in press; Tolchinsky & Teberosky, 1998).
Further, in logographic Chinese, wherein the grapheme-morpheme connections
are more prominent than syllable-grapheme linkages, morphological awareness
is a stronger predictor of children’s initial reading success than is phonological
awareness (Ku & Anderson, 2003; Li, Anderson, Nagy, & Zhang, 2002).
The Psycholinguistic Grain Size theory (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005, 2006)
explains how such variations relate to orthographic depth. According to the the-
ory, children initially develop sensitivity to larger phonological units in speech
and gradually refine their sensitivity to distinguish smaller units. Although the
sequence of phonological development is similar across languages, the precise
ways in which spoken sounds are mapped onto graphemes vary across writ-
ing systems. In learning to read, therefore, children must understand the most
effective grain size for achieving decoding efficiency in their writing system.
The theory also postulates that the grain size is determined by the amount
of orthographic information required for decoding. In phonologically shallow

orthographies, wherein sound-symbol correspondences are regular and consis-

tent, decoding necessitates little orthographic information. Therefore, the grain
sizes required for “shallow” orthographies are small at the phonemic level. In
contrast, in phonologically deep, or opaque, orthographies, decoding demands
far more orthographic information, thus requiring larger grain sizes, such as
syllables, rimes, and even morphemes.
In brief, diverse facets of metalinguistic awareness evolve through decoding
and encoding linguistic information in print; therefore, their resulting forms re-
flect the specific way in which language elements are graphically represented in
the writing system in a particular language. The implication is that metalinguitic
awareness—phonological and morphological awareness, in particular—offers
a window for investigating the language-specific demands for learning to read
across languages.
Second Language Reading Development: Dual-Language

Involvement
Second language reading differs markedly from L1 reading simply because it
involves two languages in virtually all of its operations. Theories of L2 reading
must explain how the involvement of two languages alters its development.
Probing the impacts of dual-language involvement, however, is far from simple,
because L2 reading encompasses a wide range of learners, of different ages, and
with diverse L1 backgrounds. The cognitive and linguistic resources accessible
to L2 learners vary considerably more than those available to L1 readers. In L2
research, it is therefore vital to clarify what individual learners have learned
through prior literacy experience; how the previously acquired competencies
are incorporated in L2 reading; and how such incorporation affects L2 reading
development.
Language Transfer
Transfer has long been a major theoretical concept in L2 research. Despite
its centrality, however, there is little agreement as to what constitutes transfer.
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
IL (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 of transfer share three assumptions. First, what is transferred
is linguistic knowledge, conceived as a set of rules. Second, the reliance on L1
knowledge, more or less, is associated with an insufficient grasp of L2 rules.
Third, transfer tends to cease when L2 linguistic knowledge has sufficiently
developed. The clear implication is that once adequate proficiency is attained,
learners’ L1 knowledge plays no role in explaining individual differences in L2
learning as well as the resultant knowledge.
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 illustra-
tion, transfer is defined as the ability to learn new skills by drawing on previously
acquired resources (Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006). Similarly, prior
learning experience is regarded as a reservoir of knowledge, skills, and abil-
ities that is available when learning a new language as well as literacy skills
in that language (Riches & Genesee). Under these newer conceptualizations,
the investigative focus has shifted from characterizing L1 influences (e.g., as
negative, positive, neutral) to identifying the resources available to L2 learners
at the onset of literacy learning.
Mechanisms of Transfer
In Functionalist theories, as described previously, language is viewed as a set
of relationships between forms and functions, and its acquisition is viewed
as the process of internalizing these relationships. Because such relationships
do not embody closely matched, one-on-one correspondences, they are seen
as correlational, rather than absolute, rules. According to the Connectionist
theorem, moreover, the internalization of such relationships occurs through
cumulative mapping experience. A pattern of mapping is internalized when
its execution is automated. Consequently, in this view of learning, what is
transferred is not a set of rules, as traditionally conceived, but the internalized
mapping patterns.
By extending these contentions, one way of defining transfer is automatic
activation of well-established L1 competencies (mapping patterns) triggered
by L2 input. Thus, transfer transpires regardless of learners’ intent (nonvoli-
tional) and its occurrence cannot be easily controlled (nonselective). Several
assumptions underlie this view of transfer. First, for transfer to occur, the com-
petencies in question must be well rehearsed—to the point of automaticity—in

a L1. Second, transfer is not likely to cease at any given point in time during
L2 development. Third, the transferred competencies will continue to mature
through experience with L2 print input. These assumptions are clearly distinct
from those underlying the earlier notions of transfer.
Experimental studies involving adult bilingual learners provide strong em-
pirical evidence supporting nonvolitional L1 involvement (e.g., Dijkstra, Van
Jaarsveld, & Ten Brinke, 1998; Van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998). Van
Heuven et al., for example, found that lexical decisions in English among fluent
Dutch-English bilinguals were affected by graphically similar words in both
English and Dutch even though English was the only language required for task
performance. Such crosslinguistic effects clearly indicate that both languages
are activated automatically during L2 lexical processing. Using semantic re-
latedness judgments, Jiang (2002) also showed that L1 semantic information
remained active during L2 semantic information extraction, again implying that
the activation of L1 information cannot be easily suppressed by learners when
processing L2 lexical information.
The most direct evidence of the L1 involvement comes from a cognitive
neuroscience study. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Tan
et al. (2003) successfully visualized Chinese-English bilinguals’ brain activity
during phonological decoding in their two languages. The researchers found
that phonological processing of Chinese characters among Chinese dominant
bilinguals relied on a neural system that was clearly distinct from that used
by monolingual native English speakers. Critically, when processing English,
their bilingual participants exhibited patterns of brain activity virtually identical
to those involved in Chinese decoding. These findings clearly show that well-
established L1 processing patterns are automatically activated during L2 lexical
processing.
Nonvolitional L1 activation implies that well-rehearsed L1 competencies—
particularly metalinguistic awareness—are involved in L2 information process-
ing, regardless of learners’ intent, age, L2 proficiency, and L1 background. This,
in turn, suggests that L2 input is processed through the transferred L1 competen-
cies. Under the Connectionist premises, therefore, two predictions can be made:
(a) L2 reading subskills emerge through crosslinguistic interactions between
transferred L1 competencies and L2 print input; (b) the emerging subskills are
gradually adjusted to the salient properties of the L2 input. Consequently, theo-
ries of L2 reading must explain such interactions and subsequent adjustments.
This entails clarifications of what constitutes both L1 and L2 factors—for exam-
ple, which L1 competencies are readily available for transfer; how they can be
identified; what constitutes the L2 input; how its properties can be analyzed and

described; and so on. As a step toward this end, the subsequent sections examine
how the impacts of L1 and L2 literacy experiences have been conceptualized
and studied in L2 reading research.
Impacts of L1 Literacy Experience

On the assumption that L1 reading ability is the major predictor of L2 reading
achievement, a majority of the studies pursuing the impacts of L1literacy expe-
rience have investigated the crosslinguistic relationship in reading abilities in
the two languages. Other studies have examined the formation of metalinguistic
awareness in a L2 among older, metalinguistically well-trained, learners. Ad-
ditionally, from a crosslinguistic perspective, the lasting impacts of L1 literacy
experience have also been examined by comparing processing behaviors among
L2 learners with diverse L1 backgrounds.
Crosslinguistic Relationships in Reading Skills
In a series of influential publications, Cummins (1979, 1984, 1991) proposed
the Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis, contending that the levels and
forms of L2 proficiency that bilingual children attain are determined largely by
the capabilities they have developed before intensive L2 exposure begins. He
argued that communication demands vary on two continua—cognitive complex-
ity and support from shared physical context—each of which imposes different
requisites. The skills essential for highly contextualized communication—as in
casual face-to-face conversation, for example—differs considerably from those
necessitated for cognitively demanding decontextualized communication, such
as academic literacy. According to Cummins, whereas context-embedded com-
munication skills are relatively easy to master, the acquisition of decontextual-
ized communication skills is considerably more difficult, requiring substantial
linguistic knowledge as well as a sufficient cognitive foundation for manipulat-
ing linguistic information without contextual, and other nonlinguistic, support.
Cummins maintained, moreover, that the latter competence, once developed
in a primary language, is shared across languages, supporting cognitively de-
manding communication in a L2.
On the assumption that L2 reading success depends primarily on L1 literacy
competence, early bilingual studies investigated how L1 and L2 reading abilities
are related (e.g., Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, & Green, 1981;
Legarretta, 1979; Skutnabb-Kangass & Toukomaa, 1976; Troike, 1978). Their
results consistently showed that reading abilities among school-age children
were strongly related between their two languages, which led to the contention
that L1 competence is the chief determinant of L2 achievement (Cummins,

1979, 1991). Thus, the crosslinguistic connection between L1 and L2 reading

abilities was established at the outset of this research. In the early studies,
however, reading was uniformly treated as a single unitary construct. As a result,
the critical questions—which subskills are transferred and how they contribute
to L2 reading development—remained unaddressed.
Under the componential view of reading, more recent studies have begun
to incorporate larger batteries of tasks designed to measure a variety of sub-
skills, including phonological awareness (Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & 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 et al.; Geva & Siegel, 1999;
Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Wade-Woolley & Geva), 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). Collectively, these studies have established patterns of crosslinguistic
relationships in a small, but critical, set of subskills across diverse combina-
tions of L1 and L2. Clearly, this approach holds high promise for identifying
the subskills already available for incorporation in L2 reading.
Facilitation Benefits From Prior Literacy Experience

Of late, a series of studies involving adult foreign language learners have ex-
plored the formation of literacy-related competencies—metalinguistic aware-
ness, in particular—in a L2. Because the acquisition of the awareness facets
closely attuned to the target language necessitates substantial print input and
processing experience, it poses a serious challenge for L2 learners. The central
question is to what extent and how prior metalinguistic training can expedite
the acquisition of L2 metalinguistic awareness.
Although the question has yet to be tested directly, studies involving adult
L2 learners of logographic languages shed some light on the issue. With the
growing interest in logographic literacy, an increasing number of studies have
begun to address character-knowledge development among L2 learners of Chi-
nese and Japanese. Through observations and learner introspections, descriptive
inquiries revealed that after 1 year of study, L2 learners of Chinese and Japanese
become aware of the utility of radicals (character components) in learning new
characters, that such awareness is related to character recognition performance,
and that learners initially use holistic approaches (e.g., rote memorization) to
character learning, and gradually become more componential and analytical,
invoking character segmentation and radical analysis (Everson & Ke, 1997;
Fujiwara, 2004; Ke, 1998; McGinnis, 1995).

The formation of radical awareness has also been explored in experimental

studies. Using lexical-decision and naming, Wang, Perfetti, and Liu (2003)
found that adult learners of Chinese became sensitive to the structural properties
of the characters they had learned in their first semester and that such sensitivity
was related to character naming performance. Similarly, Koda and Takahashi
(2007) compared radical awareness among native and nonnative Kanji users
through semantic category judgment. Their findings also indicate that adult
learners of Japanese develop sensitivity to the primary function of semantic
radicals early and are attentive to their information during Kanji processing.
However, their basic understanding is hardly sufficient for differentiating valid
from invalid radical information and incorporating valid information selectively
in Kanji meaning extraction.
In sum, the studies involving adult learners of Chinese and Japanese con-
sistently suggest that these learners are progressively sensitized to the major
functional and structural properties of radicals and rely on this sensitivity both in
learning new characters and retrieving stored character information. Of greatest
significance, however, such sensitivity readily develops with heavily restricted
exposure (approximately 250–400 characters) among metalinguistically sophis-
ticated adult learners. This contrasts sharply with children learning to read Chi-
nese as their L1, who require knowledge of roughly 1,500–2,000 characters to
develop similar metalinguistic insights (Shu & Anderson, 1999).
Impacts of Qualitative Variation in L1 Literacy Experiences

Languages vary in the critical dimensions of their meaning-making functions.
Inasmuch as reading skills evolve through accommodating the properties of a
particular language and its writing system, the resulting skills inevitably reflect
those properties and, thus, are unique to that language. Empirical investigations
involving skilled L1 readers of a wide variety of languages provide strong em-
pirical support for systematic crosslinguistic variations in lexical and syntactic
processing (e.g., Katz & Frost, 1992; Mazuka & Itoh, 1995; Saito, Masuda, &
Kawakami, 1999; Taft & Zhu, 1995; Vaid, 1995). The question is, what hap-
pens when those skills, shaped to accommodate the properties of one language,
transfer to another?
From the language-specific perspective, a number of studies have investi-
gated systematic variations in processing behaviors attributable to learners’ L1
linguistic and orthographic properties. Typically in these studies, the magnitude
of a particular experimental manipulation is compared among L2 learners with
contrasting L1 backgrounds. For example, English as a second language (ESL)
learners with alphabetic and logographic backgrounds can be contrasted in

their reliance on phonemic analysis during phonological decoding. Because al-

phabetic literacy requires segmenting and manipulating phonemic information,
alphabetic readers rely heavily on phonemic analysis. In contrast, phonological
decoding in logography does not entail phonemic analysis because phonology
in logographic literacy involves syllables and morphemes. It can be hypothe-
sized, therefore, that blocking phonemic information induces different reactions
among “alphabetic” and “logographic” ESL learners. In specific, whereas de-
coding efficiency among “alphabetic” ESL learners would be seriously impaired
when phonemic information is made unavailable, “logographic” learners would
be far less affected by this manipulation.
The studies testing this and other similar hypotheses generally confirm that
L2 learners with diverse L1 backgrounds respond differently to a variety of
experimental manipulations (e.g., Akamatsu, 2003; Brown & Haynes, 1985;
Green & Meara, 1987; Koda, 1998, 1999); and critically that the observed
differences are attributable to the structural variations in the participants’ re-
spective first languages (e.g., Koda, 1989, 1990, 1993; Ryan & Meara, 1991).
Viewed collectively, these results make it plain that L1 literacy experience not
only imposes lasting impacts on L2 reading development but also systematically
alters processing procedures for print information extraction in a L2.
Impacts of L2 Literacy Experience

Print input and experience are the key determinants of the outcomes stemming
from a particular instance of literacy learning. In L2 research, the effects of
language proficiency, as a general index of learner experience, have been ex-
tensively studied. To date, however, far less information is available regarding
the nature of L2 print input and its impacts on reading subskills development.
L2 Proficiency
It is widely accepted that sufficient linguistic knowledge is a vital requisite for
successful reading in a L2. The significance of L2 proficiency, for example, was
stressed in the short-circuit hypothesis (Clarke, 1980) that “limited control over
the language ‘short circuits’ the good reader’s system causing him/her to revert
to poor reader strategies when confronted with a difficult or confusing task in the
second language” (p. 120). Similarly, Yorio (1971) maintained that conceptual
processing, such as guessing and predicting, is hindered by “the imperfect
knowledge of the language” (p. 108). These early contentions led to a celebrated
question (Alderson, 1984): “Is second language reading a language problem or
a reading problem?” The question has prompted a number of empirical studies

comparing the relative contributions of the two key variables—L2 proficiency

and L1 reading ability—to L2 reading performance. Their findings suggest
that although the two factors contribute significantly to L2 reading, linguistic
knowledge generally accounts for greater proportions of L2 reading variances
than does L1 ability (e.g., Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Bossers, 1991; Carrell,
1991). Caution must be exercised, however, in interpreting these results because
in the studies, both reading ability and language proficiency were represented by
aggregated scores. To reiterate, disparate reading subskills necessitate distinct
linguistic knowledge. Therefore, aggregated scores allow neither inferences
regarding how one’s ability contributes to the other nor generalizations of the
reported findings to specific subskills. In fact, studies investigating decoding
development among school-age bilingual students demonstrate that L2 oral
proficiency has little bearing on word reading performance (Durgunoglu et al.,
1993; Gholamain & Geva, 1999).
Proficiency effects have also been studied by comparing decoding efficiency
among high- and low-proficiency L2 learners. It has been reported that with
increased proficiency, decoding speed improves (Favreau & Segalowitz, 1982;
Haynes & Carr, 1990), and error rate decreases (Bernhardt, 1991). Similarly,
eye-movement studies demonstrate that while the number of eye fixations does
not differ widely across proficiency levels, the fixation duration among low-
proficiency learners is considerably longer than that among high-proficiency
learners (e.g., Oller, 1972; Oller & Tullius, 1973; Bernhardt, 1986; Saito, 1989).
Clearly, the collective implication is that proficiency differences are directly
related to decoding efficiency.
It is important to note that inefficient decoding has a major consequence
for comprehension subskills development. Because inefficient decoding is re-
source demanding, it severely restricts readers’ involvement in higher order
comprehension operations, such as text-information integration, inference, and
reasoning. Thus, decoding efficiency variance is likely to cause differential
involvement in the subsequent comprehension operations between high- and
low-proficiency learners. The predicted contrast in comprehension behaviors
between high- and low-proficiency learners has been found in studies exploring
reading strategies.
Chamot and El-Dinary (1999), as an illustration, compared the quality
and quantity of reading strategies among high- and low-achieving elementary-
school learners in language immersion classrooms. Although the total number
of reported strategies was similar between the groups, high- and low-achieving
students differed in the types of strategy used during reading. Roughly half the
strategies reported by low-achieving students were decoding-related strategies,

whereas the majority reported by high-achieving students was conceptual in

nature, including inferences, predictions, and elaborations. Similar tendencies
have been reported in other studies involving adult L2 learners (e.g., Carrell,
1989; Chern, 1994; de Courcy & Birch, 1993; Young & Oxford, 1997). Ad-
ditionally, these studies have revealed that low-proficiency learners rely heav-
ily on local strategies to enhance their decoding performance, whereas high-
proficiency learners generally do not think local strategies are useful.
L2 Print Input and Exposure

The quantity and quality of input processed largely determines what emerges
from learning. It is thus essential that the major properties of input be carefully
analyzed and accurately described. Despite its potential utility, however, little
information is available on the nature of print input or its impacts on L2 reading
development. Of late, however, preliminary efforts have been initiated to explore
how specific input properties enhance the formation of metalinguistic awareness
in L2 literacy learning.
Wang, Perfetti, and Liu (2004) examined how curriculum-based frequency
affects character knowledge development among adult native English speakers
learning Chinese as a L2. Using lexical judgments, the researchers found that
novice learners were capable of detecting structural violations and that their
performance was significantly faster and more accurate with high-frequency
characters. The results were interpreted as suggesting that adult L2 learners are
quickly sensitized to the major structural properties of the grapheme in a new
writing system and that input frequency strongly affects the formation of such
sensitivity.
The impacts of print input and exposure have also been studied with school-
age students learning to read in Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) (Koda,
Lu, & Zhang, in press). The researchers analyzed the major properties of the
Chinese characters explicitly taught in grades 1–6 Language Arts textbooks
specifically designed for CHL learners. Their analysis revealed that CHL stu-
dents are taught roughly 35% of the characters and 20% of the radicals that
are introduced in grades 1–6 textbooks for native-Chinese-speaking children
in China (Shu et al., 2003). Despite these quantitative differences, the types of
character and proportion of structurally and functionally regular characters were
remarkably similar between the two textbook corpora. Based on the analysis, the
researchers then examined how the identified input (Chinese characters) proper-
ties related to morphological awareness among grades 3–5 CHL students. They
found that CHL students were sensitized to the major structural and functional
properties of the morphologically complex characters. Importantly, however,

there was no increment in morphological awareness among CHL students in

the three critical grades. Considering that major growth in morphological aware-
ness occurs between grades 2 and 5 among native-Chinese-speaking children
(Ku & Anderson, 2003; Shu & Anderson, 1999), these findings suggest that
although the restricted input does not prohibit CHL students from developing
a basic sensitivity to the major input properties, it does not allow them to refine
their preliminary understanding, and, as a result, their morphological aware-
ness remains basic. Viewed as a whole, these initial studies clearly suggest that
input characteristics are directly responsible for the resulting form and level of
metalinguistic awareness.
Interaction Between L1 and L2 Literacy Experiences

As evident in the preceding sections, L1 and L2 literacy experiences both play
a definitive, but distinct, role in L2 reading development. Because L2 reading
skills are presumed to evolve through their interactions, it is important to ex-
amine their impacts in tandem. Several lines of inquiries are already underway,
considering (a) common underlying competencies, (b) linguistic distance, and
(c) crosslinguistic interactions.
Phonological Awareness as a Common Underlying Competence

In view of the strong contribution of phonological awareness (PA) in early
reading development in a variety of languages, including logographic Chinese
(Ho & Bryant, 1999; Li et al., 2002), the consequential question is whether PA is
a language-specific construct or a general competence shared across languages.
A portion of PA—children’s growing understanding of the segmental nature
of spoken words—is believed to emerge, as a by-product of oral language
development, prior to formal reading instruction. Because the concept of word
segmentation is not specific to any particular language, once developed in one
language, it should be readily available in learning to read in another language,
serving as the foundation for subsequent PA and decoding development. It can
be predicted, therefore, that (a) all facets of PA in bilingual children are highly
correlated between their two languages and (b) L2 decoding development is
closely related to PA in both languages.
A growing number of studies involving young L2 learners have pro-
vided considerable support for these predictions. Early studies investigated
whether PA in either L1 or L2 relates to L2 word-reading ability. Cisero,
Carlo, and Royer (1992), for example, contrasted English monolingual and
Spanish-dominant bilingual first-grade children in phoneme detection and

concluded that in both groups, competent readers were superior in phonemic

analysis to their less competent counterparts. Similarly, in a study on Spanish-
dominant bilingual first-grade students, Durgunoglu et al. (1993) determined
that L1 PA is a powerful predictor of subsequent word recognition skills in both
languages.
Using larger batteries of tasks in both L1 and L2, subsequent studies have
more directly tested PA’s crosslinguistic relationship. Their findings suggest
that L1 and L2 PA are closely related and that poor readers are uniformly
weak in phonological skills in both languages (e.g., Abu-Rabia, 1995; August,
Calderon, & Carlo, 2001; Carlisle & Beeman, 2000; Cormier & Kelson, 2000;
Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Verhoeven, 2000;
Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000).
More recent studies have begun to address more specific issues con-
cerning construct validity and generalizability of the earlier findings. As a
case in point, in a large-scale study involving 812 Spanish-English bilingual
kindergarten children, Branum-Martin et al. (2006) tested the construct va-
lidity of three commonly used PA tasks (blending, segmentation, and dele-
tion). Although the three tasks defined a unitary construct in each language,
deletion was less strongly related to the construct. Removing deletion, the
remaining tasks in both languages loaded on a single factor, implying that
although there are some unique dimensions, PA in English and Spanish largely
overlap.
The above-cited studies all involved children learning to read two alpha-
betic languages. It is less certain whether the reported crosslinguistic rela-
tionships can be generalized to bilingual children whose literacy involves two
typologically unrelated writing systems. A small, but growing, body of ev-
idence suggests that PA is also strongly related between Chinese and En-
glish (Bialystok et al., 2005; McBride-Chan, Cheung, Chow, & Choi, 2006;
Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005), providing further support for the supposi-
tion that at least a portion of PA is a general competence shared across
languages.
Taken as a whole, the empirical findings make it plain that (a) as in L1
literacy, PA plays a critical role in L2 reading acquisition, (b) PA in a bilingual
student’s two languages are highly correlated, and (c) PA relates to decoding
both within and across languages. Although the extent to which PA is a general,
language-independent competence is not yet certain, the findings to date suggest
that once acquired in one language, PA readily provides substantial facilitation
in learning to read in another language.

Linguistic Distance Between the Two Languages

Linguistic distance refers to the degree of structural similarity between two
languages. Combinations of languages among L2 learners are widely varied,
so some combinations are more closely related than others. Because shared
structural properties pose similar processing demands, when the two languages
are closely related, transferred L1 competencies, in principle, should be read-
ily functional with minimum adjustment. Hence, linguistic distance should be
directly related to differences in processing efficiency at a given point in time
among L2 readers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Although distance effects have
been widely acknowledged, little is known about how shared structural proper-
ties might facilitate L2 reading development.
Muljani, Koda, and Montes (1998) shed substantial light on the issue
by testing orthographic distance effects on L2 intraword structural sensi-
tivity. Comparing lexical-decision performance among proficiency-matched
adult ESL learners with related (Indonesian employing a Roman-alphabetic
script) and unrelated (Chinese using a logographic system) orthographic
backgrounds, the researchers showed that only Indonesian participants ben-
efited from intraword structural congruity (i.e., spelling patterns consistent
between English and Indonesian). Their superiority, however, was far less
pronounced with incongruent items whose spelling patterns were unique to
English. These findings suggest that although orthographic distance has gen-
eral facilitative impacts, accelerated efficiency is localized, occurring only
in the operations whose demands are identical to those imposed by the
learner’s L1.
Similar findings have been reported in studies comparing morphological
segmentation among ESL learners with related (Korean: alphabetic, concatina-
tive) and unrelated (Chinese: logographic, nonconcatinative) L1 backgrounds
(Koda, 2000; Koda, Takahashi, & Fender, 1998). Not surprisingly, Korean learn-
ers were more efficient in morphological segmentation than their proficiency-
matched Chinese counterparts, but their efficiency gap was substantially re-
duced when they were confronted with the items whose structural properties
are unique to English. Clearly, segmentation efficiency in the items structurally
unique only to the target language is far less affected by linguistic distance, pre-
sumably because their analysis requires insights unavailable to either Korean or
Chinese ESL learners. Here again, the findings suggest that the distance effect
is far more specific than has been generally assumed. The important implication
is that L1-induced facilitation can be predicted, with great accuracy, through
finely tuned crosslinguistic analysis.

Crosslinguistic Interactions
Because dual-language involvement is the defining characteristic of second-
language reading, understanding how the two languages interact during second-
language processing is critical. Of late, interest in such interactions has risen.
Initial studies have explored the relative impact of first- and second-language
factors on second-language lexical processing, using a variety of experimental
tasks including semantic category judgment (Wang, Koda, & Perfetti, 2003),
associative word learning (Hamada & Koda, in press), and word identification
(Wang & Koda, 2005, this volume). To isolate the impact stemming from ei-
ther L1 or L2 factors in these studies, L2 stimulus words were manipulated
in one way or another, and the magnitude of such manipulations was com-
pared between two learner groups, each representing a distinct L1. In such a
design, the extent that a particular manipulation affects both groups is used
as the basis for gauging the L2 impact, and the extent that the effect of the
manipulation varies between the learner groups serves as an index of the L1
impact.
As an illustration, through semantic category judgments, Wang, Koda, &
Perfetti (2003) compared the relative impact of phonological and graphic ma-
nipulations on judgment performance among ESL learners with alphabetic
(Korean) and logographic (Chinese) L1 backgrounds. In the study, participants
were first presented with a category description, such as “flower,” and then
showed a target word; they were then asked to decide whether the word was a
member of the shown category. The task would have been simple if the students
had been shown real words as targets. In the experiment, however, the target
words were either phonologically (using homophones as targets; e.g., “rows”
for “rose”) or graphically (using similarly spelled words as targets; e.g., “fees”
for “feet”) manipulated. The primary hypothesis was that the two ESL groups
would respond differently to the two types of manipulation: Korean participants
would be more likely to accept homophones as category members, whereas the
Chinese participants would make more false-positive responses to graphically
similar targets. The data showed that both phonological and graphic manipula-
tions significantly interfered with category judgment performance among ESL
learners regardless of their L1 backgrounds. However, the magnitude of interfer-
ence stemming from each type of manipulation varied between the groups. As
predicted, Korean learners made more errors with homophonic (phonologically
manipulated) items, whereas more serious interference occurred with similarly
spelled (graphically manipulated) targets among Chinese learners. These results
seem to suggest that (a) proficiency-matched ESL learners are equally sensi-
tized to L2 properties, (b) the two groups rely on different information during

L2 lexical processing and (c) these differences reflect the variations predicted
from the properties specific to their respective L1s.
To sum up, the studies investigating the crosslinguistic interactions, al-
though still limited in quantity, generally suggest that L1 literacy experience
has long-lasting impacts on L2 reading development, but proficiency-matched
L2 learners are similarly affected by L2 properties. In all studies, L2 variables
were found to have a stronger impact, overriding the variance attributable to
L1 experience. Thus, although L2 print information processing is guided by in-
sights stemming from literacy experiences in the two languages, L2 print input
appears to be a dominant force in shaping reading subskills in that language.
Directions for Future Research on L2 Reading Development

As stated at the outset, the primary objective of this review is to explore the
ways in which L2 reading is constrained by language-specific demands both
within and across languages. These relations are anything but simple because
L2 reading is a complex construct, involving a multitude of operations as well
as two languages in each operation. Examinations of the linguistic constraints
across operations, as well as across languages, entail the dissection of reading
into its functionally distinct components and the identification of the linguis-
tic requisites for each component in both languages. Recent developments in
reading and SLA research make such analyses possible. Empirically, however, a
number of critical issues remain unexplored. Future research might be enhanced
by purposefully addressing the three dimensions defining the very nature of L2
reading: (a) multitude of reading components, (b) dual-language involvement,
and (c) learner varieties.
Expanding Reading Subskills

Traditionally, in L2 research, reading has been viewed unidimensionally as a
single unitary construct and is measured through global tests of comprehen-
sion. More often than not, such a view is limiting because it does not permit
researchers to identify variations in reading problems or the sources of those
problems. Put simply, when learning to read, diverse groups of L2 learners
are likely to encounter fundamentally different problems stemming from their
multiple characteristics, including different ages, disparate L1 backgrounds,
varying L2 proficiency, and so on. It is virtually impossible, therefore, to ade-
quately deal with such diversity without dissecting reading into its components.
Under the componential view of reading, recent studies have begun to in-
corporate larger batteries of tasks to identify the major correlates of reading

development in a L2. The approach holds much promise for further advancing
this research. To date, the studies have focused mainly on the factors affecting
decoding development, including phonological awareness (e.g., Durgunoglu et
al., 1993; Wang et al., 2005), rapid picture naming (e.g., Chiappe, Siegel, &
Gottardo, 2002), letter knowledge (e.g., Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Chiappe,
Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2002), and working memory (e.g., Gholamain &
Geva). Through such highly concentrated efforts, generalizable conclusions
regarding L2 decoding development are emerging.
Nonetheless, reading entails far more than decoding. It is essential, there-
fore, to expand the componential approach to other subskills, including, for
example, those required for extracting nonphonological (e.g., semantic and
grammatical) information from printed words, those necessary for integrating
the extracted lexical information into phrases and sentences, and particularly
those involved in conceptual processing. Given that the ultimate goal of reading
is text-meaning construction, systematic investigations of comprehension sub-
skills development will yield significant additional insights, much needed for
improving literacy instruction for language-minority students struggling with
reading for academic learning.
Incorporating Crosslinguistic Perspectives

Dual-language involvement has been underscored, throughout this synthesis,
as the major characteristic of L2 reading. Although there is a solid body of
evidence that literacy-related competencies transfer across languages, little is
known how the transferred competencies, shaped in one language, become
functional in another. The information is vital in understanding the impacts of
prior literacy experience on L2 reading development. However, obtaining such
information is not easy because it requires systematic comparisons of qualita-
tive and quantitative changes in particular reading subskills over time across
learners with diverse L1 backgrounds. Moreover, such comparisons are prac-
tically impossible without solid frameworks through which critical decisions
can be made regarding the specific subskills to be compared and the methods
of comparison.
A principal obstacle in such explorations lies in limited information on
reading development in languages other than English. Without understanding
what is required to be literate in either a L1 or a L2, it is essentially unfeasible
to identify gaps between what has been previously established and what has
yet to be acquired by a particular subgroup of L2 learners. Interest in crosslin-
guistic variations in reading acquisition has begun to emerge (Koda & Zehler,
in press; Li, Gaffney, & Packard, 2002; McBride-Chan, 2004). Although still

limited, the currently available information on literacy development in diverse

languages can provide useful guidance for the crosslinguistic analysis essential
for clarifying variations in the specific way in which language elements and
graphic symbols relate to one another.
Involving a Wider Variety of Learners

The onset of learning (i.e., the age at which L2 literacy learning commences)
is critical in clarifying the impacts of dual-language involvement because what
is transferred is essentially determined by what has been established through
prior literacy learning. Other things being equal, older learners possess more
transfer-ready competencies. Conceivably, then, their L2 reading development
is more seriously affected by prior literacy experience. The clear implication is
that learners at different stages in L2 reading development face fundamentally
different challenges when learning to read in a L2. Documenting these differ-
ences is vital in understanding the real needs of learners as well as helping them
maximally exploit their previously acquired competencies.
To date, however, the majority of this research has focused either on early
elementary students (grades K to 2) or on college-level learners (August &
Shanahan, 2006; Zehler et al., 2003). There have been fewer studies on stu-
dents between upper elementary grades and middle/high schools. In reality,
however, a large number of students in this age range receive formal instruc-
tion in schools in a language other than their mother tongue. Although many
of them are literate in their L1, little information is available as to what they
have already developed and how it contributes to their L2 reading development.
Unlike younger students, moreover, these learners must meet the challenge of
mastering the subject matter in a new language. Given that reading is integral
to academic learning, expediting their reading development in the language of
instruction should receive high priority. Capitalizing on the resources already
available to them can be an effective approach to helping them meet the chal-
lenge. Success in such an approach depends entirely on accurate, research-based
information on what these learners bring to L2 literacy learning.
The Present Issue

As evident in the studies included in this issue, L2 reading research has made
substantial progress in the recent years. These studies, previously published in
Language Learning between 2001 and 2005, were selected because each repre-
sents a new approach to exploring critical issues in L2 reading. Although they
cover a broad range of topics, the studies share one thing in common: They

treat L2 reading as a complex, multilingual, multifaceted construct. In particu-

lar, two studies (by Bialystok and by Wang & Koda) deal with the crosslinguistic
dimension of the construct, whereas the others (by Pulido, by Stevenson et al.,
and by Nassaji) directly address the multitude of the construct, dealing with its
component operations and their functional interactions.
Bialystok examined literacy acquisition in bilingual children by isolating
bilingualism and literacy acquisition and clarifying the effects of the former on
the latter. Subsequently, Wang and Koda explored the impact of L1 orthographic
experience on sensitivity to L2 word properties. By acknowledging the inherent
complexity in both text comprehension and vocabulary learning, Pulido inves-
tigated how levels of text comprehension affect incidental word learning using
multiple outcome measures. Similarly, Stevenson et al. estimated the relative
involvement in different levels of text processing among Dutch high school stu-
dents by comparing reading strategies in their two languages. Finally, based on
an in-depth analysis of schema theory, Nassaji offered an alternative approach
to explaining the role of knowledge in reading comprehension.
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, 351–394.
Abu-Rabia, S. (1997). Verbal and working memory skills of bilingual Hebrew-English
speaking children. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 13, 25–40.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second
language reading in text. Language Learning, 53(2), 207–231.
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a
language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign
language (pp. 1–24). London: Longman.
Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1988). This test is unfair: I’m not an economist. In
P. C. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second
language reading (pp. 168–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Davison, A. (1988). Conceptual and empirical bases of readability
formulas. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text
comprehension (pp. 23–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment
and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in
reading/language research: A research annual (pp. 231–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of reading

comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp.
255–291). New York: Longman.
August, D., Calderon, M., & Carlo, M. (2001). Transfer of skills from Spanish to
English: A study of young learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children’s
literature: Effects on first graders’ comprehension of central narrative elements.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 407–437.
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.
Beck, I. L., & Dole, J. A. (1992). Reading and thinking with history and science text.
In C. Collins & J. M. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the
twenty-first century (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of
diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–
177.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1986). Cognitive processes in L2: An examination of reading
behaviors. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Ed.), Delaware Symposium on language
studies: Research on second language acquisition in the classroom setting (pp.
35–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15–34.
Bialystock, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language
proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 580–590.
Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceilings and short-circuits: The relation between L1
reading, L2 reading and L2 knowledge. AILA Review, 8, 45–60.
Bowey, J. A., & Francis, J. (1991). Phonological analysis as a function of age and
exposure to reading instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 91–121.

Branum-Martin, L., 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 transitional bilingual education classrooms.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 170–181.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1991). Phonological skills before and after learning to read.
In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processing in literacy (pp.
37–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, T., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and reading development in a
second language. In T. H. Carr (Ed.), The development of reading skills (pp. 19–34).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryant, P., MacLean, M., & Bradley, L. (1990). Rhyme, language, and children’s
reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 237–252.
Buss, R. R., Ratliff, J. L., & Irion, J. C. (1985). Effects of instruction on the use of
story structures in comprehension of narrative discourse. National Conference
Yearbook, 34, 55–58.
Carlisle, J. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L.
Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading
Psychology, 24, 291–322.
Carlisle, J. F., & Beeman, M. M. (2000). The effects of language of instruction on the
reading and writing achievement of first-grade Hispanic children. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 4, 331–353.
Carlisle, J. F., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on
reading of derived words. Reading and Writing, 19(7), 669–693.
Carlisle, J. F., & Nomanbhoy, D. (1993). Phonological and morphological
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–195.
Carr, T. H., Brown, T. L., Vavrus, L. G., & Evans, M. A. (1990). Cognitive skill maps
and cognitive skill profiles: Componential analysis of individual differences in
children’s reading efficiency. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its
development: Component skills approaches (pp. 1–55). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. (Eds.). (1990). Reading and its development: Component
skills approaches. San Diego: Academic Press.
Carrell, P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal, 73, 121–134.
Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency?
Applied Linguistics, 12, 159–179.
Carroll, J. B. (1971). Development of native language skills beyond the early years. In
C. Reed (Ed.), The learning of language (pp. 97–156). New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.

Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of

the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 26, 413–437.
Carver, R. P. (2000). The cause of high and low reading achievement. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in language
immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83, 319–338.
Chern, C.-I. (1994). Chinese readers’ metacognitive awareness in reading Chinese and
English. (ERIC Document Reproduction, Service No. ED386060).
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (2002). Reading related skills of
kindergartners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23,
95–116.
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the
development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading,
6, 369–400.
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.
Cisero, C. A., Carlo, M. S., & Royer, J. M. (1992). Can a child raised as English
speaking be phonemically aware in another language? Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA.
Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading: Or when language
competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64,
203–209.
Cormier, P. & Kelson, S. (2000). The roles of phonological and syntactic awareness in
the use of plural morphemes among children in French immersion. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 4, 267–294.
Crain, S., & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structural dependence in grammar formation.
Language, 63, 522–543.
Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1988). Syntactic complexity and reading acquisition. In
A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension
(pp. 167–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1984). Implications of bilingual proficiency for the education of minority
language students. In P. Allen, M. Swain, & C. Brumfit (Eds.), Language issues and
education policies: Exploring Canada’s multilingual resources. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
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.

Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., & Green, D. (1981, June).
Linguistic interdependence in Japanese and Vietnamese students. Report prepared
for the Inter-America Research Associates. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading syntactic and memory skills of
Portuguese-English Canadian children. Reading and Writing: An International
Journal, 7, 139–153.
Danner, F. W. (1976). Children’s understanding of intersentence organization in the
recall of short descriptive passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,
174–183.
Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research
Quarterly, 3, 499–545.
de Courcy, M., & Birch, G. (1993). Reading and writing strategies used in a Japanese
immersion program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 097).
Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph
recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66.
Duques, S. L. (1989). Grammatical deficiencies in writing: An investigation of
learning disabled college students. Reading and Writing, 1, 309–325.
Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of
phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell,
M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th
ed., pp. 323–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential to learning to read
words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in
beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications
for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, N., & Hopper, A. M. (2001). It is easier to learn to read in Welsh than in English.
Effects of orthographic transparency demonstrated using frequency-matched
cross-linguistic reading tests. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22,
571–599.
Everson, M. E., & Ke, C. (1997). An inquiry into the reading strategies of intermediate
and advanced learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Journal of the Chinese
Language Teacher Association, 32, 1–20.
Favreau, M., & Segalowitz, N. (1982). Second language reading in fluent bilinguals.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 329–341.
Feldman, L. B., & Bentin, S. (1994). Morphological analysis of disrupted morphemes:
Evidence from Hebrew. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47,
407–435.

Fowler, A. E., & Liberman, I. Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in
morphological awareness. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of
language processing (pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fowler, C. A., Napps, S. E., & Feldman, L. B. (1985). Relations among regular and
irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition
priming. Memory & Cognition, 13, 241–255.
Fujiwara, H. (2004). Effects of semantic radical information types on inferring the
meaning of unfamiliar Kanji among native speakers and foreign language learners
of Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Garner, R., Alexander, P., Slater, W., Hare, V. C., Smith, T., & Reis, R. (1986).
Children’s knowledge of structural properties of expository text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78, 411–416.
Gass, S. M., & Schacter, J. (1989). Introduction. In S. M. Gass & J. Schacter (Eds.),
Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 1–9). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. L. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic
relationships. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 153–183). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Geva, E. (in press). Facets of metalinguistic awareness related to reading development
in Hebrew: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual and bilingual children. In K.
Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic
relationships in first and second language literacy development. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent
development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12,
1–30.
Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the
concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language
Learning, 49, 183–217.
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing
meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 311–336). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the
Reading Specialist, 6, 126–135.
Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral language miscues: Applied psycholinguistics.
Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9–30.

Goswami, U., Gombert, J. E., & de Berrera, L. (1998). Children’s orthographic

representation and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English,
French and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 19–52.
Green, D. W., & Meara, P. (1987). The effects of script on visual search. Second
Language Research, 3, 102–117.
Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (in press). Second language vocabulary acquisition:
Influence of first language orthographic experience on decoding and lexical
memory. Language Learning.
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj II (Ed.),
Language development: Syntax and semantics (pp. 245–274). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Writing system background and second language
reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaking-readers
of Chinese. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development:
Component skills approaches (pp. 375–421). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ho, C. S.-H., & Bryant, P. (1999). Different visual skills are important in learning to
read English and Chinese. Educational and Child Psychology, 16, 4–14.
Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1978). Reading skill and the role of verbal
experience in decoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 717–729.
Hu, M., and Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading
comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second
language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–638.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal
study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,
243–255.
Katz, L., Rexer, K., & Lukatela, G. (1991). The processing of inflected words.
Psychological Research, 53, 25–32.
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). Reading in different orthographies: The orthographic
depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology,
morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ke, C. (1998). Effects of language background on the learning of Chinese characters
among foreign language students. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 91–100.
Kelliher, S., & Henderson, L. (1990). Morphologically based frequency effects in the
recognition of irregularly inflected words in auditory word recognition. British
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 527–539.
Kintsch, W. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. In M. A. Gernsbacher
(Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721–739). San Diego: Academic Press.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Koda, K. (1988). Cognitive process in second language reading: Transfer of L1 reading
skills and strategies. Second Language Research, 4, 133–156.

Koda, K. (1989). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development

of L2 reading proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 529–542.
Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 12, 393–410.
Koda, K. (1993). Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structure during L2
sentence comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77, 490–500.
Koda, K. (1998). The role of phonemic awareness in L2 reading. Second Language
Research, 14, 194–215.
Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword structural sensitivity and decoding
skills. Modern Language Journal, 83, 51–64.
Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 21, 297–320.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Koda, K., Lu, C., & Zhang, Y. (in press). Properties of Characters in heritage Chinese
textbooks and their implications for character knowledge development among
Chinese heritage Language Learners. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a
heritage language. Hawaii: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Koda, K., & Takahashi, T. (2007). Role of radical awareness in lexical inference in
Kanji. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Koda, K., Takahashi, E., & Fender, M. (1998). Effects of L1 processing experience on
L2 morphological awareness. Ilha do Desterro, 35, 59–87.
Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language
acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ku, Y-M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in
Chinese and English. Reading and Writing, 16, 399–422.
Kuhara-Kojima, K., Hatano, G., Saito, H., & Haebara, T. (1996). Vocalization latencies
of skilled and less skilled comprehenders for words written in hiragana and kanji.
Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 158–171.
Legarretta, D. (1979). The effects of program models on language acquisition of
Spanish speaking children. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 521–534.
Li, W., Anderson, R. C., Nagy, W., & Zhang, H. (2002). Facets of metalinguistic
awareness that contribute to Chinese literacy. In W. Li, J. S. Gaffiney, & J. L.
Packard (Eds.), Chinese children’s reading acquisition: Theoretical and
pedagogical issues (pp. 87–106). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Li, W., Gaffney, J. S., & Packard, J. L. (Eds.). (2002). Chinese children’s reading
acquisition. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological
Review, 95, 492–527.
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.). (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence
processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mazuka, R., & Itoh, K. (1995). Can Japanese speakers be led down the garden path? In
R. Mazuka, & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 295–330).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McBride-Chan, C. (2004). Children’s literacy development. London: Arnold.
McBride-Chan, C., Cheung, B. W.-Y., Chow, C.S.-L, & Choi, L. (2006).
Metalinguistic skills and vocabulary knowledge in Chinese (L1) and English (L2).
Reading and Writing, 19, 695–716.
McBride-Chan, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W.-Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The
role of morphological awareness in children’s vocabulary acquisition in English.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415–435.
McGinnis, S. (1995). Student attitudes and approaches in the learning of written
Chinese. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Association for
Applied Linguistics, Long Beach, CA.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text:
Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research
Muljani, M., Koda, K., & Moates, D. (1998). Development of L2 word recognition: A
Connectionist approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 99–114.
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school
English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253.
Nagy, W. E., McClure, E., & Mir, M. (1997). Linguistic transfer and the use of context
by Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 431–452.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research on reading and its development for reading
instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olhausen, M. M., & Roller, C. M. (1988). The operation of text structure and content
schema in isolation and in interaction. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 70–
88.
Oller, J. W., Jr. (1972). Assessing competence in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 4,
107–116.
Oller, J. W., Jr., & Tullius, J. (1973). Reading skills of non-native speakers of English.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 69–80.
Oney, B., & Durgunoglu, A. Y. (1997). Learning to read in Turkish: A phonologically
transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 1–15.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Vol. II
(pp. 815–860). New York: Longman.

Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,

7, 3–24.
Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L.C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and
learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283–319.
Perfetti, C. A., & Dunlap, S. (in press). Learning to read: General principles and
writing system variations. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read
across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language
literacy development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning:
Comparisons across and within writing systems. Reading and Writing, 18, 193–
210.
Qian, D. D. (1998). Depth of vocabulary knowledge: Assessing its role in adults’
reading comprehension in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Toronto.
Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Crosslanguage and crossmodal influences. In F.
Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating
English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rubin, H. (1991). Morphological knowledge and writing ability. In R.M. Joshi (Ed.),
Written language disorders (pp. 43–69). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Ryan, A., & Meara, P. (1991). The case of invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading
English words. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 531–540.
Saito, H., Masuda, H., & Kawakami, M. (1999). Subword activation in reading
Japanese single Kanji character words. Brain & Language, 68, 75–81.
Saito, Y. (1989). The effects of article deletion in English on the cognitive processes
reflected in the eye movements and metacognitive awareness of native readers and
Japanese readers of English: An eye-tracking study. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of
word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1972). Misreading: A search for causes. In J. F.
Kavanaugh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by eye and by ear (pp. 293–317).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Share, D., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading
development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. In
J. S. Carlson (Ed.), Issues in education: Contributions from psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
1–57). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Shu, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Learning to read Chinese: The development of
metalinguistic awareness. In A. Inhuff, J. Wang, & H. C. Chen (Eds.), Reading
Chinese scripts: A cognitive analysis (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shu, H., Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Wu, N., & Xuan, Y. (2003). Properties of school
Chinese: Implications for learning to read. Child Development, 74, 27–47.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity,
phonological, and short-term memory in normally achieving and learning disabled
children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28–37.
Skutnabb-Kangass, T., & Toukomaa, P. (1976). Teaching migrant children’s mother
tongue and learning the language of the host country in the context of sociocultural
situation of the migrant family. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission for
UNESCO.
So, D., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). Learning to read Chinese: Semantic, syntactic,
phonological and short-term memory skills in normally achieving and poor Chinese
readers. Reading and Writing, 9, 1–21.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A
model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
Stahl, S. A., & Murray, B. A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its
relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221–234.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and
new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Cramer, B. B. (1984). Assessing phonological
awareness of kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 38, 175–190.
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, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. P. (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: Erlbaum.
Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Feng, C.-M., Siok, W. T., Perfetti, C. A., Xiong, J., Fox, P. T.,
& Gao, J.-H. (2003). Neural systems of second language reading are shaped by
native language. Human Brain Mapping, 18, 158–166.
Tolchinsky, L. (2003). The cradle of culture and what children know about writing and
numbers before being taught. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tolchinsky L., & Teberosky, A. (1998). The development of word segmentation and
writing in two scripts. Cognitive Development, 13, 1–25.
Torgesen, J. K., & Burgess, S. R. (1998). Consistency of reading-related phonological
processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and
instructional studies. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in
beginning literacy (pp. 161–188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Troike, R. C. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education.
NABE Journal, 3, 13–24.

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 derivational morphology during reading.
Cognition, 36, 17–34.
Vaid, J. (1995). Effect of reading and writing directions on nonlinguistic perception
and performance: Hindi and Urdu data. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts
and literacy: Reading and learning to read the world’s scripts (pp. 295–310).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood
effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39,
458–483.
Van Valin, R. D. (1991). Functionalist linguistic theory and language acquisition. First
Language, 11, 7–40.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological
awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental
study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.
Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research
Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313–330.
Verhoeven, L., & Carlisle, J. F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Morphology
in word identification and word spelling. Reading and Writing, 19, 643–650.
Wade-Woolley, L., & Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the
acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 295–311.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). The development of
reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional
causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30,
73–87.
Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification
skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55,
71–98.
Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and non-alphabetic L1
effects in English semantic processing: A comparison of Korean and Chinese
English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129–149.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C.A., & Liu, Y. (2003). Alphabetic readers quickly acquire
orthographic structure in learning to read Chinese. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7,
183–208.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2004). The implicit and explicit learning of
orthographic structure and function a new writing system. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 8, 357–379.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition:
Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88.

Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177.
Yorio, C. A. (1971). Some sources of reading problems in foreign language learners.
Language Learning, 21, 107–115.
Young, D. J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to
process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied
Language Learning, 8, 43–73.
Zehler, A.M., Fleischman, H.L., Hopstock, P.J., Stephenson, T.G., Pendzick, M.L., &
Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive Study of Services to LEP Students and LEP Students
with Disabilities: Vol. I. Research Report. Submitted to U.S. Department of
Education, OELA. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.
Zhang, S., & Perfetti, C. A. (1993). The tongue-twister effect in reading Chinese.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 1–12.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia,
and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: Similar
problems, different solutions. Developmental Sciences, 9, 425–436.

Reading and Language Learning: Crosslinguistic Constraints On Second Language Reading Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading and Language Learning: Crosslinguistic Constraints On Second Language Reading Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Reading and Language Learning:

The ultimate goal of reading is to construct text meaning based on visually

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 1

(c) in L2 reading, subskills development involves two languages. Consequently,

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 2

there is little consensus as to what constitutes “transfer” and how it transpires.

Linguistic Knowledge in Reading Development

3 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

Linguistic Knowledge in Decoding

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 4

learners to access the stored linguistic knowledge accumulated through oral

5 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

language, interacting with reading comprehension ability, is the major determi-

Linguistic Knowledge in Text-Information Building

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 6

7 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

fact, that syntactic knowledge significantly contributes to reading performance

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 8

It is important to note, however, that structural organization varies widely

Linguistic Knowledge in Reader-Model Building

9 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

permitting irrelevant information to remain active during the integration pro-

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 10

It should be noted, moreover, that the theory makes no distinction between

11 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

mapping requirements) and how it is mapped (language-specific mapping re-

Universal and Language-Specific Constraints

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 12

Metalinguisitic Awareness in Reading Acquisition

13 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

to the conviction that to master an alphabetic script, children must recognize

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 14

Crosslinguistic Variations in Metalinguistic Awareness

15 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

orthographies, wherein sound-symbol correspondences are regular and consis-

Second Language Reading Development: Dual-Language

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 16

17 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 18

Impacts of L1 Literacy Experience

19 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

1979, 1991). Thus, the crosslinguistic connection between L1 and L2 reading

Facilitation Benefits From Prior Literacy Experience

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 20

The formation of radical awareness has also been explored in experimental

Impacts of Qualitative Variation in L1 Literacy Experiences

21 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

their reliance on phonemic analysis during phonological decoding. Because al-

Impacts of L2 Literacy Experience

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 22

comparing the relative contributions of the two key variables—L2 proficiency

23 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

whereas the majority reported by high-achieving students was conceptual in

L2 Print Input and Exposure

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 24

there was no increment in morphological awareness among CHL students in

Interaction Between L1 and L2 Literacy Experiences

Phonological Awareness as a Common Underlying Competence

25 Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44

concluded that in both groups, competent readers were superior in phonemic

Language Learning 57:Suppl. 1, June 2007, pp. 1–44 26

Linguistic Distance Between the Two Languages