ArticlePDF Available

Advantages of Bilinguals Over Monolinguals in Learning a Third Language

Authors:

Abstract

The present study is an examination of the contribution of bilingualism to trilingualism, namely the influence of learning two different orthographies on learning a third. The participants were two groups of sixth graders from Israeli schools who were studying English as a foreign (second or third) language: Russian Israeli children for whom Russian was their native language and Hebrew was their second language and a control group of native Hebrew speakers. The participants were administered cognitive and metacognitive linguistic tests: IQ, reading strategies, syntactic judgment, orthographic choice, orthographic knowledge, and phonological awareness tests. In addition, language knowledge tests were also given: Vocabulary, word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension. The MANOVA procedures indicated stronger English skills among the native Russian speakers than the native Hebrew speakers on almost all measures. However, both groups showed similar proficiency on the Hebrew measures. Our findings give more support to the notion that knowledge of several different orthographies enhances rather than diminishes L1 and L2 proficiency. The results are discussed in light of across-language transfer, the orthographic depth hypothesis, and the psycholinguistic grain-size theory.
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, and Working
Memory Skills of Bilingual Arabic-English
Speaking Canadian Children
Salim Abu-Rabia1,3 and Linda S. Siegel2
This study assessed the reading, language, and memory skills of 56 bilingual Arab-Canadian children
age’s 9–14. English was their main instructional language, and Arabic was the language spoken at
home. All children attended a Heritage Language Program in Toronto where they were taught to read
and write Arabic. The children were administered word and pseudo-word reading, language, and
working memory tests in English and Arabic. The majority of the children showed at least adequate
proficiency in both languages. There was a significant relationship between the acquisition of word
and pseudo-word reading working memory, and syntactic awareness skills in the two languages. The
poor readers in Arabic had lower scores on all linguistic tasks, except the visual task. There were no
significant differences between bilingual English Arabic children and monolingual English-speaking
children on the reading, language, and memory tasks. However, bilingual English Arabic children
who had reading problems in English had higher scores on English pseudo-word reading and
spelling tasks than monolingual English-speaking children with reading disabilities, probably because
of positive transfer from the regular nature of Arabic orthography. In this case, bilingualism does
not appear to have negative consequences for the development of language reading skills in both
languages—Arabic and English—despite the different nature of the two orthographies.
KEY WORDS: Bilingual Arabic-English; bilingual reading disabilities; monolingual reading dis-
abilities; reading disabilities in different orthographies.
INTRODUCTION
Bilingualism is a common phenomenon for many children in Canada. The
children of immigrants speak and hear their first language in their homes
661
0090-6905/02/1100-0661/0 © 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 31, No. 6, November 2002 (
©
2002)
This research was supported by a grant form the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada to Linda S. Siegel.
1Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Israel.
2Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B. C., Canada.
3To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Faculty of Education, University of Haifa,
Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Fax: 972-4-240911; email: salimar@construct.Haifa.ac.il
and neighborhoods, but they are educated in the language of the majority.
Canada has two official languages, English and French. In addition, multicul-
turalism is an official policy of Canada. In many communities across Canada
this policy means that children who come from homes in which neither
English nor French is spoken receive most of their schooling in English or
French (depending on the area of the country where they live), but they also
receive some instruction in their heritage or home language. Little is known
about the nature and extent of English (or French) and heritage language
proficiency of these children.
There are two major hypotheses about the relationship between skills
in first and second languages. According to the linguistic interdependence
hypotheses developed by Cummins (1979) concerning learning the first
language (L1) and the second language (L2), children who have learning
problems in L1 will show similar problems in L2. Further, academic skills
acquired successfully in L1 will be transferred to L2. Learning L1 and L2
does not hinder the progress of either, and, in fact, may enhance both.
Alternatively, there is the script-dependent hypothesis, namely, that the
characteristic of different scripts may result in different reading and writing
problems emerging in the two languages. For example, English does not
have a one-to-one relation between graphemes and phonemes; words are not
always pronounced as they are spelled and there are many irregularities.
However, Arabic has much more predictable grapheme–phoneme corre-
spondence rules than English, so the nature of the problems in the two
languages may be quite different.
There have been a number of studies of the relationship between
bilingualism and reading. Da Fontoura and Siegel (1995) examined the
nature of language, memory, and reading skills of bilingual Portuguese-
Canadian students. The children were administered word and pseudo-word
reading, language, and working memory tasks in English and Portuguese.
The majority of the children showed at least adequate proficiency in both
languages on those tasks. The children who had low reading scores in
English also had significantly lower scores on the Portuguese tasks. The
Portuguese-Canadian children who were normal-achieving readers did not
differ from a comparison group of monolingual English-speaking normal-
achieving readers on the above tasks. In both English and Portuguese,
reading difficulties appeared to be related to deficits in phonological pro-
cessing, working memory, and syntactic awareness.
In support of Cummins’ hypothesis in a study of Berber- and Arabic-
speaking children educated in Arabic in Morocco, Wagner, Spratt, and Ezzaki
(1989) found that early differences in reading and language skills of the two
groups of children disappeared by the later grades. Furthermore, a study by
Geva and Siegel (2000) found significant relationships among performances
662 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
on word identification, pseudo-word reading, working memory and syntactic
awareness tasks in English and Hebrew.
A study conducted by Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993)
investigated cross-language transfer of phonological awareness of bilingual
Spanish-English beginning readers. Participants were 31 Spanish-speaking
first-grade students. They were administered tests of letter naming, Spanish
phonological awareness. Spanish and English word recognition, and
Spanish and English oral proficiency. Performance on English word and
pseudo-word recognition tests were correlated with levels of both Spanish
phonological awareness and Spanish word recognition, thus indicating
cross-language transfer. These results confirm the importance of phonemic
awareness in first and second-language acquisition (e.g., Stanovich, 1982;
Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988; Wagner, 1988; Yopp, 1988).
In support of the script-dependent hypothesis, Ryan and Meara (1991)
reported a study that investigated the hypothesis that Arabic-speaking learn-
ers of English tend to rely heavily on consonants when attempting to recog-
nize English words, because of the different orthography of Arabic, their L1.
The task was to recognize the missing vowels in English words. The Arabic
speakers tended to confuse English words with similar structures; they also
made more errors in the reading and spelling tests than non-Arabic-speaking
individuals learning English as a second language and native English speak-
ers. The results of Ryan and Meara (1991) provide support for the idea that
different orthographies may lead to different types of errors in learning L2.
This highlights the importance of taking different writing systems into con-
sideration as a potential factor to be related to the development of L2.
Although Arabic is considered a transparent language with a pre-
dictable relationship between letters and sounds, there are still irregularities,
with several vowels and letter-sound pronunciations and irregular writing
rules for many letters. These considerations are serious for beginning read-
ers who have not yet mastered all vowels and letter-sound combinations,
and whose relative literacy weakness prevents them from relying on textual
context for word prediction and comprehension. Thus the script-dependent
hypothesis would lead to the prediction that the irregularity of grapheme–
phoneme conversion rules in English would create additional reading and
writing problems for these bilingual Arab students. Cummins’ (1979) hypoth-
esis, by contrast, leads to the prediction that similar problems should be
manifested in both languages because of central processing deficit.
The purpose of this study was to examine in a group of bilingual
Arabic- and English-speaking children the relationship between reading,
writing, phonological, syntactic, orthographic, and memory skills in English
and Arabic as two different orthographies. The children came form Arabic-
speaking countries. In Canada, their schooling was in English, and they
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 663
received instruction in speaking, writing, and reading Arabic for 3 hours a
week in Arabic “Heritage” Language programs.
This study examined some processes that are significant in the devel-
opment of reading skills in English and have not been studied in the
Arabic orthography. These are phonological and syntactic awareness and
orthographic and working memory processes. Phonological processing
involves the association of sounds with letters, that is, the understanding of
grapheme–phoneme conversion rules and their exceptions, which is the basis
of decoding print (Stanovich 1988a, 1988b). Syntactic awareness refers to
the ability to understand the syntax of the language, which is critical for effi-
cient reading of text. Working memory refers to the retention of information
in short-term storage while processing incoming information and retrieving
information from long-term storage. Orthographic knowledge refers to the
ability of children to recognize the typical visual patterns (e.g., possible let-
ter sequences of the language). The development of these processes was
compared in normal and disabled readers in both English and Arabic.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were 56 students from metropolitan Toronto, a predomi-
nantly English-speaking area of Canada. They were 9–14 years old, 32
females and 24 males, in grades 4–8. All the children were born outside
Canada and had lived more than 2 years in Canada. The majority of the
children came from the lower socioeconomic level. In 10 families, the par-
ents worked in skilled jobs such as teaching and nursing or were the own-
ers of small businesses, and the remaining parents worked in unskilled or
semiskilled jobs or not at all. Most of the parents had very little education.
The language spoken at home was Arabic, but all children had English as
their instructional language in Canadian schools. The children attended
Arabic Heritage Language programs for approximately 3 hours per week,
where they received instructions in reading, writing, and speaking Arabic.
A comparison group of monolingual English-speaking children were
selected from a larger sample who had been administered the tests in
English (Siegel, 1988; Siegel & Ryan, 1989a, b; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994).
These children were matched on age to the Arabic-English bilingual chil-
dren in the 9–11-year-old range. There were 45 monolingual normal read-
ers (Wide Range Achievement Test, WRAT, Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984,
Reading Percentile 30) and 20 monolingual reading-disabled children
(WRAT, Reading Percentile 25). For the purpose of statistical analysis,
the children were divided into two age-groups, 9–11 and 12–14.
664 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
TESTS AND TASKS
The following tests and tasks were administered.
English Tasks
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R, Jastak & Wilkinson,
1984). The Reading, Spelling, and Arithmetic subtests were used. The
Reading subtest requires the child to read an increasingly difficult series of
words. In the Spelling subtest the child is required to write the correct
spelling of an increasingly difficult series of words. The Arithmetic subtest
requires the individual to perform an increasingly difficult series of arith-
metic calculations.
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, 1973). The Word Attack
and Word Identification subtests were used. In the Word Attack subtest the
child is required to read an increasingly difficult series of pseudo-words
such as cyr, roo, and wrey according to the phonological rules of English.
English Oral Cloze Test (Siegel & Ryan, 1988). The children were
instructed to fill in the missing word in each of 20 sentences presented orally.
An example of a sentence is: “Jane her sister ran up the hill.”
English Working Memory Test (Siegel & Ryan, 1989a). The children
were presented with sentences orally with the final word missing; they had
to supply it and repeat all the missing words from the set. There were three
trials in each set size (2, 3, 4, and 5). Examples of sentence are: “In sum-
mer it is very .” “People go to see monkeys in a .” “With
dinner we sometimes eat bread and .” The child was required to
repeat the three words he or she selected, in this case “hot,” “zoo,” “but-
ter,” in the same order that they had been presented. To minimize word-
finding problems, the sentences were chosen so that the word was virtually
predetermined.
English Orthographic Test (Seigel, Share, & Geva, 1995). Seventeen
pairs of pseudo-words were presented. Only one of each pair could be the
spelling of a word. Examples of these paired pseudo-words are: filv-filk,
and tolz-tolb. The child was instructed to select the member or pair that
could be “or looked like” an English word.
English Phonological Test (Olson, Kliegel, Davidson, and Foltz, 1985).
Twenty-six pairs of pseudo-words were presented; one word of the pair was
a pseudo-homophone and one a pseudo-word. The child was instructd to
select the word in each pair that “sounds like a real word.” Examples of
these pairs are: saip-saif and seaf-seet.
English Visual Test (Olson et al., 1985). Twenty-six pairs of words
were presented: one word of the pair was a pseudo-homophone and one was
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 665
666 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
correctly spelled. The children were instructed to select the correctly spelled
word. Examples of these stimuli are: sheep-sheap and face-fase.
Arabic Tasks
Arabic Word Reading. These test involved two lists of words that stu-
dents were asked to read aloud. One list contained 45 Arabic words with
vowels (parallel to the English WRAT-R list) and the other 106 Arabic
words with vowels (parallel to the English Woodcock test list). The words
were selected from Arabic readers used in Arabic primary and intermediate
schools in Israel.
Arabic Spelling Test. The children had to write an increasingly diffi-
cult series of 45 Arabic words (parallel to the English WRAT-R spelling
words). The words were selected from the Arabic readers used in Arab pri-
mary and intermediate schools in Israel.
Arithmetic (Arabic version). The WART-R Arithmetic test was pre-
sented to the children in Arabic.
Arabic Word Attack Test. The children were required to read an
increasingly difficult series of Arabic pseudo-words.
Arabic Oral Cloze Test. The children were isntructed to fill in the
missing words in each of the sentences presented orally. Critical features of
Arabic were tested.
Arabic Working Memory Test. The children were presented orally with
Arabic sentences lacking the final word, which they had to supply; they also
had to repeat all the missing words from the set. There were three trials with
each set size (2, 3, 4, and 5). The children were required to repeat the 2, 3,
4, or 5 words they selected in the same order that they had been presented.
Arabic Orthographic Test. Seventeen pairs of pseudo-words were pre-
sented. Only one of each pair could be the spelling of a word because the
incorrect one contained an orthographic combination that never occurred in
Arabic.
Arabic Visual Test. Twenty-six pairs of words were presented; one
word of the pair was a pseudo-homophone and one was correctly spelled.
Consistent with adaptation of the English language tests, we attempted
to develop an Arabic phonological test parallel to the English version.
Unfortunately, this particular test was very difficult to adapt because of col-
loquial and phonological Arabic inflections.
Procedure
The children were tested individually at home. The English and Arabic
tests were administered to all the children. The English tests were administered
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 667
as follows: working memory, orthographic, oral cloze, phonological, visual,
Woodcock reading, and WRAT-R reading. The Arabic tests were adminis-
tered as follows: working memory, orthographic, oral cloze, visual condition
word attack, reading, and WRAT-R arithmetic. The order of language of pre-
sentation was randomly assigned to either English first or Arabic first.
RESULTS
The intercorrelations among tests are shown in Tables I, II, and III. As
these tables show, there were statistically significant correlations between
the English and the Arabic tests, except for the visual tests. There were sig-
nificant correlations between the word and pseudo-word reading tests within
and between the two languages, suggesting the operation of similar pro-
cesses in both languages.
The oral cloze tests were significantly correlated with all reading tests
in both languages; the Arabic and English working memory tests were also
significantly correlated with each other and with all reading tests, except for
the visual tests in both languages.
Cognitive Processes as a Function of a Reading Disability
The children were divided into two groups based on their score on the
WRAT-R reading subtest in English. Normal-achieving readers were
defined as those with scores greater than 30 percentile; there were 41 of
these children (ages 9–14). Eleven children (ages 9–14) whose scores were
less than 30 percentile on the WRAT-R reading subtest were considered
Table I. Intercorrelations of the English Tests
Word Word Phono- Ortho- Oral Working
identification attack logical Spelling Visual graphic cloze memory Arithmetic
WRAT .56 .44 .49 .55 n.s. .43 .57 .48 .61
reading
Word .59 .40 .57 n.s. .58 .66 .55 .49
identification
Word attack .50 .42 n.s. .50 .63 .49 .49
Phonological .55 n.s. .65 .73 .79 .50
Spelling n.s. .53 .39 .45 .43
Visual n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Orthographic .61 .67 .39
Oral cloze .67 .44
Working .53
memory
aAll values are significant at the level of p.01.
reading disabled. The children were also divided into two age-groups, 9–11
and 12–14. Because the number of the second age-group (12–14) was too
small to be divided in subgroups based on performance on English tests, the
differences on these tests were not calculated. The mean scores on the
English tests for the 9–11 gourp are shown in Table IV. There were signif-
icant differences between the groups in the English tests: oral cloze, word
attack, phonological task, arithmetic, spelling, and word reading. There
were no significant differences between the groups on the orthographic tests
and the visual task.
Table V presents the mean scores of the Arabic tests based on the defin-
ition of a reading disability using the WRAT and shows significant differences
between the groups in some of the Arabic tests: oral cloze, orthographic, word
identification, word reading, word attack, spelling, and arithmetic. There weas
no significant difference between the groups on the working memory test and
the visual test. Therefore the children who would be classified as reading-
disabled in English showed significantly poor performance in most of their
reading, spelling, and language tests in both languages.
The group was arbitrarily divided into good and poor readers in Arabic
based on their scores in Arabic word reading. Children (n11) with scores
in the Arabic reading test less than 44 were labeled poor readers (age range
9–11); children (n18) with scores in the Arabic reading test greater than
45 were labeled good readers (age range 9–11). Comparisons are shown in
Tables VI and VII. Table VI presents performances on Arabic tasks, and
Table VII presents performance on English tasks. Tables VI and VII show
that the good readers had significantly higher scores in every test, except
the visual tests in both English and Arabic.
668 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
Table II. Intercorrelations of the Arabic Tests
Word Word Phono- Ortho- Oral Working
identification attack logical Spelling Visual graphic cloze memory Arithmetic
WRAT .42b.34b.35c.42bn.s. .34b.45b.37b.43b
reading
Word .62c.60c.45bn.s. .49c.43b.35b.58c
identification
Word attack .49c.38bn.s. .49c.57c.35b.32b
Phonological .38bn.s. .51c.55c.34b.32b
Spelling n.s. .39b.39b.42b.37b
Visual n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Orthographic .41b.60c.29a
Oral cloze .51c.30a
Working .32b
memory
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001.
n.s., not significant.
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 669
Table III. Intercorrelations of English Test Scores with Arabic Test Scores
English
Word Word Oral Working
Arabic WRAT identification attack Phonological Spelling Visual Orthographic cloze memory Arithmetic
WRAT .85c.40b.30a.27a.39bn.s. n.s. .42b.32a.54c
Word Identification .36b.82c.75c.48b.52cn.s. .46b.48b.56c.49b
Word attack .33a.69c.74c.40b.46bn.s. .42b.37b.34a.43b
Phonological .37b.36b.60c.50c.45bn.s. .40b.36b.34a.40b
Spelling .55c.56c.70c.75c.57cn.s. .48b.48b.39b.44b
Visual n.s. .69c.74cn.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .43b
Orthographic .43b.39b.37b.60c.48bn.s. .74c.43b.53c.18a
Oral cloze .28a.45b.47b.76c.35an.s. .57c.67c.56b.26a
Working memory .47b.54c.40b.79c.60cn.s. .64c.65c.92c.44b
Arithmetic .53c.85c.59cn.s. .32a.52c.38b.44b.55c.90c
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001.
n.s., not significant.
670 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
Table IV. Mean and Standard Deviations in the English Tests
as a Function of Group (Age Range 9–11)
English tests Normally achieving (n20) Reading disabled (n9)
WRAT reading 53.0c10.1
(17.1) (3.6)
Orthographic 12.3 11.0
(1.7) (2.0)
Visual 20.4 19.7
(1.8) (1.7)
WRAT spelling 45.9c20.7
(15.4) (6.4)
Oral cloze 15.6c9.7
(2.0) (3.0)
Working memory 8.5b5.1
(3.7) (2.1)
Phonological 21.0a16.9
(4.7) (4.9)
Woodcock word attack 47.3a24.4
(16.2) (6.8)
Woodcock word reading 46.1d12.7
(17.5) (6.3)
Arithmetic 30.1a27.2
(3.7) (3.6)
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001, dp.0001.
Table V. Mean and Standard Deviations in the Arabic Tests
as a Function of Group (Age Range 9–11)
Tests Normally achieving (n20) Reading disabled (n9)
Word Reading 54.3b43.2
(11.9) (8.9)
Orthographic 9.2b6.7
(2.2) (2.6)
Visual 13.3 12.9
(1.3) (1.7)
Spelling 549b27.8
(6.8) (7.0)
Oral Cloze 11.5c7.8
(2.0) (2.9)
Working memory 9.2 8.1
(3.7) (2.1)
Word attack 22.3b15.6
(5.3) (5.7)
Word identification 54.6b41.1
(11.6) (11.4)
Arithmetic 48.2a28.3
(18.3) (21.3)
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001.
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 671
Table VI. Comparison of Good and Poor Readers Defined by Their
Performance on Arabic Tests (Age Range 9–11)
Arabic tests Good readers (n18) Poor readers (n11)
Word reading 54.9b44.3
(11.2) (10.9)
Orthographic 9.7b6.4
(2.3) (1.7)
Visual 13.7 12.3
(1.1) (1.5)
Spelling 34.8b23.8
(6.6) (12.7)
Oral cloze 11.9b7.9
(2.3) (2.4)
Working memory 9.1a7.0
(4.4) (4.6)
Word attack 23.8b13.4
(4.4) (5.2)
Word identification 29.5a27.2
(3.6) (4.3)
Arithmetic 58.9d36.5
(7.9) (4.6)
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001, dp.0001.
Table VII. Comparison of Good and Poor Readers Defined by Their
Performance on English Tests (Age Range 9–11)
English tests Good readers (n18) Poor readers (n11)
WRAT reading 53.0c28.8
(19.5) (12.7)
Orthographic 12.6b6.4
(1.8) (1.7)
Visual 20.5 18.4
(1.9) (5.2)
WRAT spelling 45.9c36.7
(5.4) (8.5)
Oral cloze 15.79b7.9
(2.0) (2.4)
Working memory 9.1b6.3
(3.8) (4.6)
Phonological 21.5b12.3
(.80) (1.5)
Woodcock word reading 70.3a27.2
(9.0) (4.3)
Woodcock word attack 42.6a21.5
(3.7) (10.9)
Arithmetic 30.1c22.3
(3.6) (4.6)
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001.
672 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
The other group (age range 12–14) was also arbitrarily divided into
good and poor readers in Arabic based on their scores in the Arabic word
reading. Children (n9) with scores below 35 were labeled poor readers;
children (n18) with scores above 36 were labeled good readers. The
comparisons are shown in Tables VIII and IX.
As seen in Table VIII, the good readers had significantly higher scores
in the orthographic, phonological, word attack, word identification, arith-
metic, and spelling tests, while the oral cloze, working memory, and visual
tests did not show any significant differences between groups. Further,
Table IX shows that there are similar results with the English tests, and the
results of the 12–14 age-group are similar to the results of the 9–11 age-
group, with significant differences on every variable except the visual and
working memory tasks.
Comparison with Monolingual English Normal and Disabled Readers
The performance of bilingual Arabic-English normal and disabled read-
ers was compared with the performance of English monolingual normal and
disabled readers for the 9–11-year-old age range. These results are shown in
Table VIII. Comparison of Good and Poor Readers Defined by Their
Performance on Arabic Reading Tests (Age Range 12–14)
English tests Good readers (n14) Poor readers (n9)
WRAT reading 53.0 28.8
(19.5) (12.7)
Orthographic 14.5a8.3
(2.1) (2.1)
Visual 22.5 20.5
(2.2) (4.4)
WRAT spelling 57.1c23.2
(7.7) (6.5)
Oral cloze 17.2 15.7
(2.2) (2.0)
Working memory 11.1 10.3
(4.4) (5.6)
Phonological 22.0a10.0
(4.1) (4.2)
Woodcock word attack 53.3b27.2
(15.7) (11.1)
Woodcock word reading 56.3b32.2
(12.9) (15.5)
Arithmetic 56.2b27.5
(12.5) (7.9)
ap.05, bp.01, cp.001.
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 673
Table X. Note that the majority of the children had no difficulties in English,
even though it was their L2, and they were defined as normal readers (30
percentile on their English WRAT-R reading) in this study. Their scores in
the word and pseudo-word reading, spelling, and working memory tests were
equivalent to those of monolingual English normal readers.
When the bilingual reading-disabled children were compared with
monolingual English reading-disabled children the scores of the two groups
were not significantly different in the word reading, working memory, oral
cloze, visual, and orthographic tests. However, the bilingual reading-disabled
children had significantly higher scores than the monolingual children in the
WRAT spelling test and the Woodcock word attack test involving reading
pseudo-words. The bilingual reading-disabled children had significantly
lower scores in the oral cloze test than the monolingual children.
DISCUSSION
The relationships among phonological skills, syntactic awareness, and
working memory are consistent with the findings of Da Fontoura and Siegel
(1995), Geva and Siegel (2000), and Siegel and Ryan (1988). The strong
Table IX. Comparison of Good and Poor Readers Defined by Their
Performance on Arabic Reading Tests (Age Range 12–14)
Tests Good readers (n14) Poor readers (n9)
Word reading 63.4b25.8
(15.0) (16.7)
Orthographic 12.7a7.2
(2.6) (3.1)
Visual 14.1 14.4
(1.2) (1.2)
Spelling 26.7b13.9
(4.2) (5.8)
Oral cloze 13.4a8.9
(2.5) (3.2)
Working memory 6.0 5.1
(4.6) (1.2)
Word attack 26.9b13.1
(5.5) (5.7)
Word identification 48.0b22.9
(10.3) (5.1)
Arithmetic 30.4a27.7
(3.0) (7.4)
ap.05, bp.01.
relationship between pseudo-word reading and word recognition across lan-
guages indicates that the phonic skills are a significant component of read-
ing of the particular alphabetic languages examined in this study. The high
correlations between reading skills in English and Arabic found in this
study were similar to the correlations between reading in Berber and Arabic
found by Wagner et al. (1989) and are consistent with the results obtained
by Durunoglu et al. (1993) about cross-language transfer of phonological
awareness of bilingual Spanish-English beginning readers.
Because English and Arabic reading, language, and memory skills
were highly correlated, the relationships are suggestive of individual differ-
ence variables as the significant determinants of reading skills, rather than
difficulties that are language dependent. Thus the data from this study are
consistent with the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Moreover, the
data are generally consistent with the hypothesis that bilingual children with
reading problems in English are likely to show problems in their other lan-
guage, in this case Arabic. Similar problems are evident in both languages
for the children who had difficulties. This close relationship between the
two languages is suggestive of general language deficit in some children.
674 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
Table X. The Mean Scores of English-Canadian and Arab-Canadian Normal-Achieving
Children and Reading-Disabled in Reading, Language, and Memory Tests (Age Range 9–11)
Normal achieving Reading disabled
English-Canadian Arab-Canadian English-Canadian Arab-Canadian
(n45) (n18) (n20) (n11)
Arithmetic 33.7 30.1 28.4 27.2
(5.7) (3.7) (6.2) (3.6)
WRAT spelling 44.2 42.1 10.5b20.7
(8.5) (5.5) (6.2) (6.4)
WRAT reading 58.0 53.1 8.9 10.1
(13.7) (17.1) (4.2) (3.6)
Woodcock word 48.3 46.1 14.1 12.3
identification (15.2) (17.5) (5.2) (6.3)
Woodcock word attack 51.1 47.30 17.2a24.4
(16.3) (16.2) (8.2) (6.8)
Working memory 7.9 8.5 5.8 5.1
(2.7) (3.7) (3.2) (2.1)
Oral cloze 16.4 15.7 17.1a12.0
(2.1) (1.9) (4.2) (3.0)
Visual 21.2 20.4 17.2 19.7
(2.3) (1.8) (4.2) (1.8)
Orthographic 16.3a12.3 10.4 10.8
(2.0) (1.7) (3.5) (2.0)
Phonological 20.1 21.0 13.2a16.9
(3.7) (4.7) (4.2) (4.9)
ap.05, bp.01.
The results are suggestive of the importance of certain cognitive pro-
cesses in the development of reading skills as outlined by Siegel (1993).
Phonological processing skills, as measured by pseudo-word reading, are
highly correlated with word recognition skills in both English and Arabic.
Disabled readers in Arabic show the same difficulties with phonological
processing as do disabled readers in English. In both English and Arabic,
deficits in working memory and syntactic awareness are also characteristic
of individuals with a reading disability.
The significant correlations among reading skills, syntactic awareness
tests, and working memory tests in the same language were significant, as
were cross-language correlations. Therefore, relationships between reading
and syntactic awareness were not language-specific, which supports the cen-
tral deficit hypothesis. However, the visual tests in English and Arabic did
not show significant correlations in the same-language and cross-language
correlations. These results highlight the role of phonological rather than
visual difficulties as the significant components of a reading disability.
The results of this study are analogous to those of Lambert and Tucker
(1972), Bank and Swain (1975), and McDougall and Bruck (1976) in their
studies of French immersion in Canada. In the French immersion programs,
native English-speaking children receive reading instruction in French.
English instruction is started several grades later, but these children catch
up with monolingual English-speaking children who receive instruction in
English. There appears to be some positive transfer from French to English
in the case of reading skills. However, the French skills of these children
were behind those of monolingual French-speaking children. For the bilin-
guals in the present study, if we consider Arabic as their first language and
English as their main instructional language, the results are even more
encouraging than those for the children in the French immersion programs.
For the children with normal reading skills, all the reading and language
skills that were measured were equivalent to those of monolingual English-
speaking children, with the exception of the English orthographic test,
which is not surprising because Arabic-English bilinguals had less exposure
to English orthography. However, they performed as well as the mono-
linguals in the spelling, word attack, oral cloze, and phonological tests.
Similarly, in a study of Turkish-speaking children in the Netherlands,
Verhoeven (1990) found that they were not as proficient as the native
Dutch-speaking children in word and pseudo-word reading and sentence
imitation tests. However, many of the Turkish-speaking children displayed
adequate proficiency.
The reading-disabled Arabic-English bilinguals had higher scores in
the English pseudo-word reading, word spelling, and some of the phono-
logical tests than a comparison group of monolingual English reading-
disabled children. This finding is similar to the results from a study by Da
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 675
Fontoura and Siegel (1995) in which it was found that bilingual English-
Portuguese–speaking reading-disabled children had higher scores in English
spelling and pseudo-word reading tasks than monolingual English-speaking
reading-disabled children. This finding may reflect a positive transfer from
the more predictable grapheme–phoneme conversion rules of Arabic to the
very opaque orthography of English. It is unlikely that socioeconomic fac-
tors were responsible because the socioeconomic level of the Arab bilin-
guals was lower than that of the English monolinguals.
The results of this study show that bilingualism is clearly not an imped-
iment to the development of reading, syntactic, and memory skills. They pro-
vide support for the Heritage Language Program in Toronto (Cummins,
1979, 1989; Cummins & Danesi, 1990). Most of the children from Arabic-
speaking homes who were being educated in English but received some
instruction in Arabic performed well in the reading memory and language
tests in both English and Arabic. Some of the Arabic-speaking children did
show reading problems in English, but they showed similar problems in
Arabic. Of course, it is impossible to determine how the reading and spoken
language skills of these children compare with children in Arab countries
who have received all their instruction in Arabic.
Although this study was only conducted with one language group, the
results can be viewed as encouraging for the Canadian Heritage Language
programs and for multiculturalism in general. Obviously, more research must
be conducted before a conclusive statement can be made. It is important to
note that most of the bilingual Arab-Canadians in this study showed levels of
reading, syntactic awareness, and verbal working memory skills similar to
those of monolingual English-speaking Canadian children. The bilingual chil-
dren who did have problems had similar difficulties in English and Arabic.
In a meta-analysis of studies of bilingual education, Willig (1985) con-
cluded that “participation in bilingual educational programs consistently
produced small to moderate differences favoring bilingual education for
tests of reading, language skills, mathematics and total achievement when
the tests were in English, and for reading, language, mathematics, writing,
social studies, listening comprehension and attitudes towards school or self
when tests were in other languages” (p. 269). The results of this study sup-
port this conclusion.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. The Reading
Research and Education Center. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bank, H. C., & Swain, M. (1975). Three-year evaluation of a large scale early grade French
immersion program: The Ottawa study. Language Learning, 25, 1–30.
676 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
Reading, Syntactic, Orthographic, Working Memory Skills 677
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual
children. Review of Educational Research, 49 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association
for Bilingual Education, Sacramento, CA.
Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages: Toronto, Canada Our Schools
Ourselves Education Foundation.
Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Iran, C. (1984). Linguistic
interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In: C. Rivera (Ed.),
Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and
application (60–81). England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
De Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic and working memory skills of
bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 7 139–153.
Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of
phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Ganschow, I., Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J., Pohman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991).
Identifying native language difficulties among foreign language learners in college: A
“foreign” language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 530–541.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent devel-
opment of basic reading skill in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12, 1–30.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised Wilmington,
DE: Jastak Associates.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Lindgren, S. D., De Renzi, E., & Richman, L.C. (1985). Cross-national development dyslexia
in Italy and the United States. Child Development, 56, 1404–1417.
McDougall, A., & Bruck, M. (1976). English reading within the French immersion program:
A comparison of the effects of the introduction of English reading at different grade lev-
els. Language Learning, 26, 37–43.
Olson, R., Kliegel, R., Davidson, B. J., & Foltz, G. (1985). Individual and developmental dif-
ferences in reading disability. In: T. G. Waller (Ed.), Reading Research: Advances in the-
ory and practice (Vol. 4, 1–64). New York: Academic Press.
Ryan, A., & Meara, P. (1991). The case of the invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading
English words. Reading in a Foreign Language, L 531–539.
Siegel, L. S. (1986). Phonological deficits in children with a reading disability. Canadian
Journal of Special Education, 1, 45–53.
Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of
reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201–215.
Siegel, L. S. (1993). The development of reading. In: H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behavior (Vol. 24, 63–97). San Diego: Academic Press.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological, and
short-term memory skills in normally achieving and learning disabled children.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 28–37.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989a). The development of working memory in normally achiev-
ing and subtypes of disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973–980.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989b). Subtypes of development dyslexia: The influence of
definitional variables. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 257–287.
Siegel, L. S., Share, D., & Geva, E. (1995). Evidence for superior orthographic skills in dyslex-
ics. Psychological Science, 6, 250–254.
Stavonich, K. E. (1982). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading: 1. Word
decoding. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 485–493.
Stavonich, K. E. (1988a). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and garden variety
poor reader: The phonological-core variance-difference model. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21, 590–604, 612.
Stavonich, K. E. (1988b). The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of read-
ing disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 154–177.
Stavonich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading-dis-
abled children: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.
Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. M., Lucker, G. W., & Lee, S. Y. (1982). Reading disabilities: The
case of Chinese, Japanese and English. Child Development, 53, 1164–1181.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N., & Hart, O. (1990) The role of mother tongue literacy in
third language learning. Vox. 4, 111–121.
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M.L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and begin-
ning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134–158.
Venezky, R. I. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
Verhoeven, L. T. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research
Quarterly, 25, 90–114.
Wagner, D., Spratt, J. E., & Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does learning to read in a second language
always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence from Morocco. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 10, 31–48.
Wagner, R. K. (1988). Causal relations between the development of phonological processing
abilities and the acquisition of reading skills: A meta-analysis. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
34, 261–279.
Willig, A. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies in the effectiveness of bilingual edu-
cation. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269–317.
Woodcock, R. W. (1973). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. Circle Press, Minnesota:
American Guidance Society.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177.
678 Abu-Rabia and Siegel
... Their findings culminate in recognizing a reverse transfer of reading skills from English (the foreign language FL) to Hebrew (the second language L2) and Arabic (the first language L1). The same examination is carried by the same pioneering authors (Abu Rabia & Sanitsky, 2010;Abu Rabia & Danon, 2012;Abu Rabia at al., 2013). These research studies revolve mainly around bilingual or trilingual children with a focus on struggling achievers. ...
... Fundamental strategies, such as higher-level order thinking skills, prove to be transferred across languages when addressed by means of streamlined instructional support. Nonetheless, the stagnated orthographic knowledge scores suggest that print exposure in one writing system is not sufficient enough to bring about a cross-language transfer between distinct orthographies (Abu Rabia & Sanitsky, 2010;Deacon et al., 2009). ...
Article
em>The extant study extrapolates the principles of the Cognitive Retroactive Transfer hypothesis, a theory of reading transfer between languages recently introduced to the literature, in an academic context. Forty-five freshmen are recruited from the English Department at the School of Arts and Humanities Ben M’sik (Hassan II University of Casablanca). The study employs a quasi-experimental design which involves two main phases: pre-intervention and post-intervention. The participants are selectively allocated to an experimental group (n=25) and a control group (n=20). The experiment measures the transferability of improved metalinguistic awareness from English (the foreign language “FL”) to Arabic (the first language “L1”). To this end, a battery of reading tests is administered in both languages before and after the intervention. Upon completing the pretest phase, the experimental group receives a three-month training, targeting core metalinguistic skills. To compare pretest and posttest scores, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is conducted to check the groups’ overall differences across the set of reading skills before using Simple Group Contrasts (k-matrix) as a follow-up test to analyze the groups’ performance on each reading skill. The results show a positive effect of the intervention on the experimental group’s performance over all the skills except orthographic knowledge posttest scores which level off. The findings give more prominence to the CRT hypothesis which has been solely tested in children bilingual settings. The unchanged orthographic knowledge scores suggest the essential role of explicit print exposure and practice in developing spelling skills in another language. The ongoing research paper calls for adopting fine-grain and level-fitting pedagogical approaches to address reading difficulties at university levels.</em
... More recently, differences between multilinguals and monolinguals in (E)FL learning have also been targeted in immigrant contexts, where children acquire a HL along with the ML. The evidence from this line of research is mixed: While a growing number of studies indicate that multilingual pupils outperform their monolingual peers on FL learning at school (Schwartz et al., 2007;Abu-Rabia and Sanitsky, 2010;Rauch et al., 2011;Kopečková, 2016;Maluch and Kempert, 2017;Maluch et al., 2015Maluch et al., , 2016Hopp et al., 2019;Nguyen and Winsler, 2021;Chachashvili-Bolotin and Kreiner, 2022;Geiss et al., 2022), there are also studies that found no differences between multilinguals and monolinguals on FL measures (Schoonen et al., 2002;Edele et al., 2018;Festman, 2018;Lorenz et al., 2020Lorenz et al., , 2023Lorenz et al., , 2024. There are even studies in which monolinguals outperformed their multilingual peers on EFL proficiency (Van Gelderen et al., 2003;Lorenz et al., 2024). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Both multilingualism and developmental language disorder (DLD) may be associated with inferior performance in the majority language, albeit for different reasons. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence that multilingualism may have a positive effect on foreign language performance. This study tests the hypothesis that the positive effects of multilingualism on foreign language learning may be smaller in children with DLD compared to their multilingual peers with typical language development. Methods In a 2 × 2 design, we compare the effects of multilingualism and DLD on English as a foreign language performance and majority language performance of multilinguals and monolinguals with and without DLD. The participants were primary school children (aged 9–13) acquiring Dutch as the majority language and learning English as a school subject. English skills were measured with a vocabulary test, a grammar test and the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN). Dutch skills were assessed with the Litmus Sentence Repetition Task and the MAIN task. The MAIN narratives in both languages were analyzed for fluency, lexical diversity, syntactic complexity and grammatical accuracy. The control variables included age, working memory, declarative memory, procedural memory and (for English) amount of extracurricular exposure and length of instruction. Data were analyzed by means of multilevel linear regression. Results The results demonstrate that both multilingualism and DLD were associated with lower scores on the Dutch Sentence Repetition Task and lower grammatical accuracy of narratives. In English, the multilinguals outperformed monolinguals on all measures, except grammatical accuracy of narratives, and the interactions between Background and Group were not significant. Another strong predictor of EFL performance, along with the multilingual status, was extracurricular exposure to English.
... One of the bilingual benefits documented in the literature pertains to advantages in foreign language (FL) learning at school, OPEN ACCESS EDITED BY also known as third language (L3) advantages (see review in Hirosh and Degani, 2018). There is indeed a growing body of evidence demonstrating that bilingual learners tend to outperform their monolingual peers in novel language learning (Thomas, 1988;Swain et al., 1990;Cenoz and Valencia, 1994;Lasagabaster, 2000;Sanz, 2000;Brohy, 2001;Sagasta Errasti, 2003;Clyne et al., 2004;Keshavarz and Astaneh, 2004;Abu-Rabia and Sanitsky, 2010;Rauch et al., 2011;Maluch et al., 2015Maluch et al., , 2016Mady, 2017;Maluch and Kempert, 2017;Hopp et al., 2019;Salomé et al., 2021). For example, in one of the first studies on this topic, Cenoz and Valencia (1994) focused on secondary school bilingual students learning L3 English in the Basque Country, where both the L1 and L2 (Basque and Spanish) are socially relevant and supported in schools. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction One of the bilingual advantages often reported in the literature on typically-developing children involves advantages in foreign language learning at school. However, it is unknown whether similar advantages hold for bilingual pupils with learning disabilities. In this study, we compare the performance of monolingual and bilingual primary-school children with developmental language disorder (DLD) learning English as a school subject in special education schools in the Netherlands. Methods The participants were monolingual (N = 49) and bilingual (N = 22) children with DLD attending Grade 4−6 of special education (age 9–12). The bilingual participants spoke a variety of home languages. The English tests included a vocabulary task, a grammar test and a grammaticality judgement task. The Litmus Sentence Repetition Task and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test were used as measures of, respectively, grammatical ability and vocabulary size in Dutch (majority/school language). In addition, samples of semi-spontaneous speech were elicited in both English and Dutch using the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives. The narratives were analysed for fluency, grammatical accuracy, lexical diversity, and syntactic complexity. A questionnaire was used to measure amount of exposure to English outside of the classroom. Results and discussion The results for Dutch revealed no differences between monolinguals and bilinguals on the narrative measures, but monolinguals performed significantly better on both vocabulary and grammar. In contrast, bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on all English measures, except grammatical accuracy of narratives. However, some of the differences became non-significant once we controlled for amount of out-of-school exposure to English. This is the first study to demonstrate that foreign language learning advantages extend to bilingual children with DLD. The results also underline the need to control for differences in out-of-school exposure to English when comparing bilingual and monolingual pupils on foreign language outcomes.
... Such differential pattern indicates the crucial role of L2 proficiency in resolving L1-L2 inconsistencies particularly for novel words with no mental representation, whereas for those accessible in the mental lexicon (and hence less influenced by script inconsistency) L2 proficiency was particularly beneficial for words in L1 condition. Similar beneficial effects of bilingualism for the processing of native language were reported at cognitive (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2013;Soliman, 2014) and linguistic (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, 2010;Antoniou et al., 2015;Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009) levels of analysis; they are often framed as BILINGUAL ADVANTAGE effects (Bialystok, 1999(Bialystok, , 2017Friedman, 2016). In this line, the facilitatory effects observed in our study with regard to facilitated L1 lexico-semantic processing as a consequence of L2 experience support previous findings of better reading and orthographic learning abilities in biliterates in comparison to monoalphabetic bilinguals, an effect likely due to a higher flexibility of the former group's orthographic systems Modirkhamene, 2006;Schwartz et al., 2007Schwartz et al., , 2014. ...
Article
We investigated the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying bi-alphabetic reading using event-related potentials (ERPs). Brain activity was recorded using EEG in a group of Russian–English biliterates during a reading-aloud task with familiar and novel words. Capitalizing on a partial overlap between the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets, the stimuli were presented in L1 Cyrillic, L2 Roman, or in an ambiguous script, in a counterbalanced fashion. The results revealed functional dissociation between the stimuli in terms of processing their graphemic ambiguity. The interference caused by L1-L2 script inconsistencies in novel wordforms was detected at a late processing stage, reflected in N400 response enhancement for unfamiliar script-ambiguous items. Conversely, familiar ambiguous and L2 words showed no N400 increase but demonstrated an early enhancement of the P200 component in comparison to those presented in L1. These results indicate the use of a whole-word reading strategy for familiar words even in ambiguous script, likely triggered by an automatic activation of well-established lexico-semantic representations. The absence of similar top-down mechanisms for novel ambiguous-script words likely results in increased grapheme-to-phoneme decoding effort, with important implications for L2 reading and vocabulary acquisition.
... A growing body of research has shown that bilinguals tend to have advantages in learning additional languages compared to monolinguals (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, 2010;Hirosh & Degani, 2018), with regard to both language-general proficiency (Swain et al., 1990) and language-specific skills (Klein, 1995). Nevertheless, in the domain of non-native phonological/phonetic acquisition, studies on the influence of bilingualism have rendered mixed results (Antoniou et al., 2015;Elvin et al., 2018;Escudero et al.. 2016), which therefore requires further exploration. ...
Article
Full-text available
The current study examines how bidialectalism influences non-native speech production. We compared monodialectal Mandarin Chinese with bidialectal Shanghai-Mandarin Chinese speakers in terms of their ability to produce easy and difficult American English vowels. The results showed a general advantage for the bidialectal group compared with the monodialectal group in the production of the vowel formants and duration of the easy English vowels [i] and [u]. However, for the English vowels [ɪ] and [ʊ] known to be difficult for Chinese learners of English, both groups experienced the same challenges in terms of accurately producing the formants of the target vowels. Nevertheless, the bidialectal Shanghai-Mandarin speakers were still better than the monodialectal Mandarin speakers in the durational aspect of the two difficult English vowels. The results are explained by the Second Language Linguistic Perception (L2LP) model and suggest that the bidialectal advantage in non-native speech acquisition is subject to the modulation of cross-linguistic difficulty of the target speech sounds.
... It has been claimed that bilinguals acquire a third language (L3) easier than monolinguals acquire an L2 [1,25] and, more specifically, bilinguals may acquire certain phonetic features in an L3 easier than monolinguals acquire them in an L2 [2,3], but phonetic similarities between an unknown foreign language to the native language may also facilitate the perception of universally 'difficult' contrasts [3]. The results of this study suggest that this might also be the case for passive bilinguals (e.g., HHSs) whose HL (Hñäñho) contains similar vowel contrasts as the foreign language (French), but crucially not comparable to the vowel system of their dominant language (Spanish), thus extending the previously reported effects of L1 to heritage bilinguals. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This study investigates a potential facilitatory effect in the perception of the French vowel contrasts /a-ɔ/ and /ɔ-o/ by Spanish-dominant heritage speakers of Hñäñho (HHSs), an understudied and vulnerable Indigenous language in Mexico, as a result of transferring their perceptual abilities of comparable contrasts from their heritage language (Hñäñho) to a language unknown to them (French). In an AXB task, 12 HHSs and 12 monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish (MSMs) were presented with minimal pairs containing these vowels in Hñäñho and French. Group comparisons showed similar discrimination patterns for these groups in both Hñäñho and French. However, response time data indicate that only the HHSs exhibited significant correlations between their individual perceptual abilities in Hñäñho and French. These results suggest a possible transfer of perceptual abilities from a native, heritage language to an unknown foreign language, even if the heritage language is not actively used by its heritage speakers.
Article
Aim and Objectives There is ample evidence available in correlational studies for cross-linguistic transfer from the first language (L1) to a second or a foreign language (L2/FL). Less extensive are the interventional studies in this area. The current study sought to determine which linguistic skills transfer from Arabic (L1) to English (EFL) after employing an intervention program in Arabic. Design/ methodology Participants were sixty-nine Arabic-speaking ninth graders randomly assigned to an experimental group receiving an intervention program in Arabic and a control group not receiving an intervention. Pre-tests and post-tests tapping phonological, orthographic, morphological, and syntactic awareness in English and Arabic were administered to all participants. Data Analysis A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures compared the pre-test and post-test results in English and Arabic within each group and between the groups. In addition, a linear regression model was used to examine the predictive effect of pre-test scores and the intervention program in Arabic on post-test performance in English. Findings/Conclusion Findings revealed a within-language improvement in all Arabic skills after the intervention. As for the cross-linguistic transfer, significant differences favoring the intervention group were only demonstrated in phonological and morphological skills. No transfer was evident in orthographic or syntactic transfer. Originality By employing an intervention program addressing four linguistic skills in Arabic concurrently, the present study revealed a robust transfer of phonological and morphological awareness from Arabic to English, whereas it showed no transfer of orthographic or syntactic awareness. Significance Findings, on the one hand, lend support to the linguistic Interdependent Hypothesis by suggesting that some linguistic skills can interdependently transfer across distant languages. On the contrary, findings endorse the Script Dependent Hypothesis, by showing that some other linguistic skills are language-specific, thereby, impeding cross-linguistic transfer.
Article
Full-text available
This paper reports a complete secondary analysis of Jeon and Yamashita's (2022) systematic review to build the second language (L2) model of the simple view of reading (SVR). The same meta-analytic methodologies were maintained, with the exception of applying meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). This study successfully replicated some of the aggregated correlations but not others, owing to (a) the recoding of the original raw data to recreate a dataset and (b) the motivated change in sample selection from a longitudinal study for MASEM. The MASEM results extended previous findings that L2 comprehension skills contribute more to L2 reading comprehension than L2 decoding skills, and together explain a large amount of variance in L2 reading comprehension. The SVR model with metalinguistic skills showed their contribution to L2 decoding and comprehension skills, but no direct impact on L2 reading comprehension, supporting the parsimonious structure of SVR in L2.
Multilingualism is often associated with advantages for acquiring additional languages. Theoretical approaches explain these advantages by assuming a Common Underlying Proficiency or a Metalinguistic Awareness. At the State Europe School in Berlin, students from different language backgrounds receive instruction in German and a partner language according to two-way immersion (TWI). It is unclear how this bilingual instruction affects the acquisition of a third language. We examined the English proficiency of N = 656 TWI sixth-grade students and N = 739 mainstream students via a C-test. Multiple regression analyses revealed that TWI students exhibited higher English proficiency than mainstream students despite having received less English instruction. The results showed additional effects of German- and partner-language reading skills. The findings support the assumption of TWI programs that the use of two languages of instruction fosters third language acquisition.
Chapter
What happens in the brain when learning a second language? Can speaking more than one language provide cognitive benefits over a lifetime? What implications does an increase in bilingualism have for society? And what are the factors that can promote and support bilingualism in children and adults? This book – a translated and adapted version of Il Cervello Bilingue (2020) - answers these questions and more, providing the reader with a comprehensive yet concise guide on different topics related to bilingualism. Based on the results of the most recent studies conducted internationally, it discusses recent research findings, explains terminology, and elaborates on the current state of the field, with the aim of providing families and society with suggestions about how to encourage bilingualism. Written in an engaging and accessible style, it takes both academics and readers with no prior knowledge of the field on a journey into the bilingual brain.
Article
Full-text available
The development of a variety of grammatical-sensitivity and phonological skills was studied in 138 normally achieving, 65 reading-disabled, 63 arithmetic-disabled, and 15 attention deficit disordered (hyperactive) children 7 to 14 years old. Word recognition and phonics skills were highly related, and reading comprehension and phonics skills were less so. Grammatical sensitivity and short-term memory were significantly correlated with a variety of reading skills. Children with a reading disability showed a significant lag in the development of grammatical sensitivity and short-term memory and an even greater deficit in phonological skills. The children with a specific arithmetic disability had adequate grammatical abilities, but below-average memory skills at all ages. Children with an attention deficit but normal achievement scores did not have any major difficulties except on a reading-comprehension task that appears to have significant memory and attention components. The acquisition of reading skills is closely related to the development of grammatical and phonological skills, and deficiencies in these areas are related to difficulties with the acquisition of written language skills.
Book
Literacy is a concern of all nations of the world, whether they be classified as developed or undeveloped. A person must be able to read and write in order to function adequately in society, and reading and writing require a script. But what kinds of scripts are in use today, and how do they influence the acquisition, use and spread of literacy? Scripts and Literacy is the first book to systematically explore how the nature of a script affects how it is read and how one learns to read and write it. It reveals the similarities underlying the world's scripts and the features that distinguish how they are read. Scholars from different parts of the world describe several different scripts, e.g. Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian Amerindian -- and how they are learned. Research data and theories are presented. This book should be of primary interest to educators and researchers in reading and writing around the world.
Chapter
The extent to which disabilities are dependent upon orthographic characteristics has been a controversial issue in the research literature for quite some time (Leong, 1986; Liu, 1988;Stevenson, Lucker, William, and Shin-Yin, 1982; Taylor and Taylor, 1983). On the one hand, it has been argued that logographic languages such as Chinese and Japanese present to readers symbols that are consistent and meaningful, and therefore easy to decode (Libermann Shankweiler, Fischer, and Carter, 1974;Makita, 1968;Rozin, Poritsky, and Solsky, 1971). Therefore, it was argued, reading disabilities are not prevalent among speakers of these languages (Rozin and Gleitman, 1977). In contrast, alphabetic languages require readers to learn to match phonemes, abstract linguistic units, to graphemes. For this reason, reading disabilities should be more prevalent among those learning to read alphabetic languages than among readers of logographic languages.
Chapter
Just 20 years ago writings about word recognition in textbooks and in curriculum materials were nine parts speculation to one part information. There were so few established facts about word recognition that many authors simply started out with a theoretical view on the nature of reading and then developed the implications of their theory for word recognition. Thus, it is not surprising that the reading literature came to contain much theoretical speculation masquerading as established scientific fact.
Article
Recent advances in cross-language psycholinguistics provide reading researchers with both the models and the tools needed to investigate the syntactic processing of second language (L2) readers. In our study, 48 L1 (first language) and 48 highly fluent L2 French readers read sentences containing constructions that do not exist in English, the L1 of the L2 readers: pre-verbal pronominalization (clitics) and the faire+infinitive causative construction. The L2 readers exhibited the same processing as L1 French readers; however, slower (but equally fluent) L2 readers also employed a compensatory processing for sentences with clitics. These results build on previous findings that faster L2 readers are more efficient in their use of lower-level information by demonstrating that they are also more efficient at higher-level syntactic processing. Results are discussed in terms of implications for theories of L2 reading and recent models of cross-language syntactic processing.