Content uploaded by Johannes C Ziegler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johannes C Ziegler on Feb 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Developmental Science 9:5 (2006), pp 429– 453
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
TARGET ARTICLE WITH COMMENTARIES AND RESPONSE
Becoming literate in different languages: similar problems,
different solutions
Johannes C. Ziegler
1
and Usha Goswami
2
1. Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, CNRS and University of Provence, France
2. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK
For commentaries on this article see Durguno
g
lu (2006), Frost (2006), De Jong (2006), Paulesu (2006), Caravolas
(2006), Wimmer (2006) and Pugh (2006).
Abstract
The teaching of reading in different languages should be informed by an effective evidence base. Although most children will
eventually become competent, indeed skilled, readers of their languages, the pre-reading (e.g. phonological awareness) and lan-
guage skills that they bring to school may differ in systematic ways for different language environments. A thorough understanding
of potential differences is required if literacy teaching is to be optimized in different languages. Here we propose a theoretical
framework based on a psycholinguistic grain size approach to guide the collection of evidence in different countries. We argue
that the development of reading depends on children’s phonological awareness in all languages studied to date. However, we
propose that because languages vary in the consistency with which phonology is represented in orthography, there are develop-
mental differences in the grain size of lexical representations, and accompanying differences in developmental reading strategies
across orthographies.
Introduction
Reading is about gaining access to meaning from
printed symbols. To access meaning from print, the child
must learn the code used by their culture for represent-
ing speech by a series of visual symbols. The first steps
in becoming literate, therefore, require acquisition of the
system for mapping distinctive visual symbols onto units
of sound (phonology). This mapping process is called
phonological recoding
(Share, 1995). Mastery of this
process allows the child to access the thousands of words
that are present in their spoken lexicons prior to reading,
and also to recode words that they have heard but never
seen before. Phonological recoding works well as a
self-
teaching
device, because the relationship between symbol
and sound is systematic in most languages (e.g. the symbol
‘D’ is always pronounced /d/ at the beginning of a word).
In contrast, mapping visual symbols directly onto units
of meaning, as would be required by some sort of visual
or ‘logographic’ learning, is difficult because the relation-
ship between symbol and meaning is arbitrary. That is,
knowing that a word starts with the letter ‘D’ tells the
child nothing about its meaning.
It has become quite clear over recent years that visual
learning does not represent a viable alternative to pho-
nological recoding. Share (1995) compares visual learn-
ing to memorizing large slabs of a telephone directory:
Like printed letter strings, telephone numbers contain a
small set of symbols . . . Unless all numbers are dialed cor-
rectly
and
in the right order the connection will fail . . .
Unfortunately, there are no systematic or predictable relation-
ships between these strings and their corresponding entries;
so each of the many thousands of such associations must
be painstakingly committed to memory. There may exist a
few rare individuals who are capable of memorizing entire
telephone directories, but for the normal child about to
learn to read, the absurdity of this task should be obvious.
(Share, 1995, p. 159)
Although phonological recoding is a much more effi-
cient strategy than logographic learning, it nevertheless
has a few problems of its own. The biggest problem has
to do with inconsistency in the symbol-to-sound
Address for correspondence: Usha Goswami, Faculty of Education, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB4 1HW, UK; e-mail: ucg10@cam.ac.uk
430 Johannes C. Ziegler and Usha Goswami
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
mapping (Ziegler, Stone & Jacobs, 1997). In some ortho-
graphies, one letter or letter cluster can have multiple
pronunciations (e.g. English, Danish), whereas in others
it is always pronounced in the same way (e.g. Greek,
Italian, Spanish). Similarly, in some orthographies, a
phoneme can have multiple spellings (e.g. English,
French, Hebrew), whereas in others it is almost always
spelled the same way (e.g. Italian). English is exception-
ally inconsistent because it exhibits a high degree of
inconsistency in both directions (i.e. for reading and
spelling). This variation across languages makes it likely
that there will be differences in reading development
across languages (and probably also in spelling develop-
ment). It is relatively easy to learn about phonemes if
one letter consistently maps onto one and the same
phoneme, or if one phoneme consistently maps to one
and the same letter. It is relatively difficult to learn about
phonemes if a letter can be pronounced in multiple
ways (e.g. the letter ‘A’ in English maps onto a different
phoneme in the highly familiar words ‘cat’, ‘was’, ‘saw’,
‘made’ and ‘car’).
Reading development across languages
The most ambitious cross-language reading comparison
to date has been conducted by the
European Concerted
Action on Learning Disorders as a Barrier to Human
Development.
Participating scientists from 14 European
Community countries developed a matched set of items
of simple real words and nonwords. These items were then
given to children from each country during their first
year of reading instruction (for details see Seymour, Aro
& Erskine, 2003). Thus, children varied in age, but were
equated for degree of reading instruction across ortho-
graphy. Although method of reading instruction itself
could not be equated exactly, schools were chosen so that
all children were experiencing phoneme-level ‘phonics’
teaching. The results are summarized in Table 1.
The most striking finding from the study was that the
children who were acquiring reading in orthographically
consistent languages (Greek, Finnish, German, Italian,
Spanish) were close to ceiling in both word and nonword
reading by the middle of first grade. In contrast, English-
speaking children performed extremely poorly (34%
correct). Danish (71% correct), Portuguese (73% correct)
and French (79% correct) children showed somewhat
reduced levels of recoding accuracy, which is in line with
the reduced consistency of these languages. Analogous
results were obtained in smaller-scale studies, comparing
French, Spanish and English (Goswami, Gombert & de
Barrera, 1998), and English and German (Frith, Wimmer
& Landerl, 1998).
One potential problem with these cross-language com-
parisons are socio-cultural differences across languages.
For example, there may be differences in school systems,
curricula, teaching methods and demographic distribu-
tions. This problem has begun to be addressed, however.
Bruck, Genesee and Caravolas (1997) followed a group
of English- and French-speaking children who were
from the same area in Canada. They investigated word
and nonword reading at the end of grade 1, using high-
frequency regular monosyllabic words and nonwords.
The results showed that the English-speaking children
lagged behind the French-speaking children by about
27% on nonword reading and 24% on word reading.
Similar findings were obtained comparing beginning
reading in English and Welsh. In parts of North Wales,
English and Welsh are spoken and read side by side. In
contrast to English, however, the writing system of
Welsh is highly consistent. Parents choose whether they
want their child to attend English or Welsh schooling.
These schools serve the same geographical catchment
area, are administered by the same local education
authorities, and follow similar curricula and teaching
approaches. The only real difference is the language of
instruction. Yet, the results showed that the Welsh-
speaking children could read well over twice as many
words as the English-speaking children after the same
amount of reading instruction.
Why is reading English so much more difficult?
The reduced consistency of the English writing system in
both reading and spelling is probably the key factor in
explaining the dramatic differences in reading acquisi-
tion across languages. Interestingly, English is particularly
Table 1 Data (% correct) from the large-scale study of reading
skills at the end of grade 1 in 14 European languages (adapted
from Seymour, Aro & Erskine, 2003)
Language Familiar real words Pseudowords
Greek 98 92
Finnish 98 95
German 98 94
Austrian German 97 92
Italian 95 89
Spanish 95 89
Swedish 95 88
Dutch 95 82
Icelandic 94 86
Norwegian 92 91
French 79 85
Portuguese 73 77
Danish 71 54
Scottish English 34 29
Becoming literate in different languages 431
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
inconsistent with respect to small reading units (letters
or letter clusters corresponding to single phonemes).
English is less inconsistent with respect to larger reading
units, such as rimes or syllables (Treiman, Mullennix,
Bijeljac-Babic & Richmond-Welty, 1995). This makes it
likely that English children may be developing recoding
strategies at more than one grain size. There are more
orthographic units to learn when the grain size is big
than when the grain size is small. For instance, in
order to decode the most frequent 3000 monosyllabic
English words at the level of the rime, a child needs to
learn mappings between approximately 600 different
orthographic patterns and 400 phonological rimes, far
more than would be needed if the child could simply
learn how to map 26 letters onto 26 phonemes. But
relying solely on grapheme–phoneme correspondences
leads to inefficient recoding of English. In contrast,
young learners of relatively consistent languages can
focus exclusively at the ‘small’ psycholinguistic grain size
of the phoneme without making many reading errors.
Consistent feedback received in terms of achieving
correct pronunciations will further reinforce the acquisi-
tion process.
Psycholinguistic grain size theory
(Ziegler & Goswami,
2005) takes these factors into account. The theory sug-
gests that the dramatic differences in reading accuracy
and reading speed found across orthographies reflect
fundamental differences in the nature of the phonologi-
cal recoding and reading strategies that are developing
in response to the orthography. Children who are learn-
ing to read more orthographically consistent languages,
such as Greek, German, Spanish or Italian, rely heavily
on grapheme–phoneme recoding strategies because
grapheme–phoneme correspondences are relatively con-
sistent. Children who are learning to read less ortho-
graphically consistent languages, like English, cannot
use smaller grain sizes as easily, because inconsistency is
much higher for smaller grapheme units than for larger
units like rimes. As a consequence, English-speaking
children need to use a variety of recoding strategies,
supplementing grapheme–phoneme conversion strategies
with the recognition of letter patterns for rimes and
attempts at whole word recognition.
Recent studies have indeed shown that inconsistent
orthographies like English appear to push readers into
developing both ‘small unit’ and ‘large unit’ recoding
strategies in parallel (e.g. Brown & Deavers, 1999). To
study the flexible and adaptive use of different grain
sizes in reading English, Goswami and colleagues (Gos-
wami, Ziegler, Dalton & Schneider, 2003) asked German
and English children to read aloud several lists of non-
words. One list contained familiar orthographic patterns
at a larger grain size (‘large unit’ nonwords, like
dake
[
cake
,
make
] and
murn
[
burn
,
turn
]). Another list con-
tained only unfamiliar large unit patterns (‘small unit’
nonwords, like
daik
and
mirn
). The prediction was that
if a list contained only ‘large unit’ nonwords, then the
exclusive application of a large grain size strategy should
be very successful. In contrast, if the list contained only
‘small unit’ nonwords, then recoding should be most
successful if an exclusively small grain size strategy was
applied. The critical prediction was for a third ‘mixed’
list. If both types of nonwords were mixed within a par-
ticular list (e.g.
daik
,
murn
), continual switching between
‘small unit’ and ‘large unit’ processing may be required,
incurring a switching cost. Consistent with this predic-
tion, the results showed switching costs for the English
children but not for the Germans. Blocking word lists by
grain size apparently helped the English readers to focus
at a single grain size, which increased recoding accuracy
particularly for large unit items (like
dake
; here the child
can use rhyme analogies to
make
,
cake
,
bake
, etc.).
German readers did not show these ‘blocking’ effects.
The absence of a blocking effect for the German readers
was taken as evidence that they already relied exclusively
on processing at the small grain size level.
Similar conclusions come from studies on reading
aloud ‘sound-alike’ nonwords, so-called pseudohomo-
phones (e.g. ‘faik’). It has been shown that English
children show much stronger influences from whole
word phonology than German children of the same age
(Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton & Schneider, 2001). That is,
English children showed a significant advantage in naming
pseudohomophones in comparison to orthographic
control nonwords (e.g. ‘faik’ read better than ‘daik’),
whereas German children did not. This suggests that
English children were more affected by whole word pho-
nology when reading nonwords than German children.
German children decoded nonwords that did not sound
like real words as efficiently as nonwords that did sound
like real words, resulting in an absence of the pseudo-
homophone effect in naming.
The important role of teaching
In alphabetic orthographies, the grain size problem is
tackled by the teacher, who typically begins to teach
reading from the single letter. The child is taught letter–
sound correspondences, and hence learns about pho-
nemes. As a result, phonological representations for
words, which typically represent syllable and onset-rime
information prior to reading, are rapidly augmented
with phoneme-level information. Experience with writ-
ten language changes the nature of phonological repre-
sentations. In particular, it boosts phoneme awareness,
432 Johannes C. Ziegler and Usha Goswami
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
which, in turn, becomes the strongest predictor of suc-
cessful reading, a reciprocal relationship (Perfetti, Beck,
Bell & Hughes, 1987; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky
& Seidenberg, 2001). Small grain size teaching works
well in a language with consistent letter–sound cor-
respondences, such as Italian. However, this teaching
method works less well in a language with less consistent
letter–sound correspondences, such as English.
One approach to this teaching problem in English-
speaking countries has been to begin the teaching of
reading at younger and younger ages, and to focus more
and more at the phoneme level. In England itself, this
approach is formalized in the National Literacy Strategy
(DfEE, 1998), which requires the direct teaching of read-
ing from the age of 5 years beginning with a phoneme-
based strategy. Nevertheless, English children learn to read
more slowly than children from other countries, who
may not begin formal instruction until the age of 7 or
even 8 years. For example, Finnish children begin school
at 7, and are reading with 90% accuracy by approxim-
ately the tenth week in school (e.g. Seymour
et al.
, 2003).
English children who begin school at 4 or 5 years of age
are still struggling to reach 90% accuracy (e.g. for non-
word recoding) by age 9 or 10 (Goswami
et al.
, 1998).
The slower average rate of learning to read in English
does not seem to occur because of variations in teaching
method across different countries. Rather, it seems due
to the relatively low orthographic consistency of English.
This was demonstrated for example in the English/Welsh
comparison described earlier (Ellis & Hooper, 2001).
Converging data come from Landerl (2000). She com-
pared English children who were being taught to read by
a ‘standard’ mixed method of phonics and whole word
recognition with English children following a special
phonics program that focused almost exclusively on
letter–sound correspondences (this was a between-school
comparison conducted before the advent of the National
Literacy Strategy). She reported that the first grade
English phonics children made almost as many errors on
a nonword reading task (43%) as the first grade English
standard children (50%, a non-significant difference)
compared to 12% errors for a matched German sample.
At second grade, a similar pattern was found (English
standard
=
29% errors, English phonics
=
23% errors,
German children
=
13% errors). It was only by third
grade that the English phonics children (7% errors) were
comparable to the German children (14% errors), and
by fourth grade that the English standard children
reached a ‘German’ level of grapheme–phoneme recod-
ing skill (12% errors compared to 11% for the Germans).
The teaching methods characteristic of early literacy
instruction in Turkish provide even more striking evi-
dence for the relatively minor impact of different phonic
teaching regimes (at least, for children with normal pho-
nological skills). Literacy instruction in Turkish elemen-
tary schools does not capitalize particularly on the high
degree of orthographic transparency. In first grade, chil-
dren are given sentences to memorize. They only receive
instruction on individual components such as words,
syllables or letters following successful rote memorization.
Despite this ‘large to small’ grain size method, children
usually get their ‘red ribbons’ symbolizing good decod-
ing skills by December or January of the first school
year (see Durguno
g
lu & Oney, 2002). In other countries
with highly consistent orthographies, such as Greece and
Hungary, some geographical areas have adopted the
‘whole language’ method of initial reading instruction
(the whole language method has a meaning-based rather
than a code-based emphasis; reading is characterized as
a ‘psycholinguistic guessing game’ bootstrapped by
meaning). It is not yet clear what the effects on initial
reading acquisition will be. However, judging from the
data in Table 1, they are likely to be quite minor for
children with good phonological skills. The effects on
children with poor phonological skills are likely to be
rather greater.
A different approach to the question of the optimal
grain sizes for teaching has been to begin instruction
with correspondences for the larger units that are readily
available in the phonological domain, such as rimes or
syllables. As mentioned above, this approach requires
the child to learn a much larger number of fairly com-
plex letter combinations. Nevertheless, such a ‘large unit’
approach to teaching appears to lead to broadly similar
progress in reading English as ‘small unit’ approaches.
Recently, Walton and his colleagues (Walton, Bowden,
Kurtz & Angus, 2001a; Walton & Walton, 2002; Walton,
Walton & Felton, 2001b) compared the effectiveness of
‘large unit’ and ‘small unit’ approaches to the initial
teaching of reading to children in Canada. In these stud-
ies, they compared the effects of teaching beginning
readers to read by using a ‘rhyme analogy’ strategy
(‘beak’ – ‘peak’, see Goswami, 1986) with the effects of
teaching beginners to read by using a grapheme–
phoneme recoding strategy. All the children were pre-
readers. Reading ability was assessed following 3 months
of training, and four different kinds of words were used
to assess different skills (analogy – irregular patterns
[
fight
-
sight
], analogy – regular patterns [
bed
-
ted
], letter
recoding [
bat
-
bet
] and nonwords [
hib
]). Walton
et al.
found that both training groups showed broadly equal
reading acquisition gains immediately following train-
ing. However, whereas the rhyme analogy group could
also read new words requiring letter-recoding skills, the
letter-recoding group could not read new words requir-
ing rhyme analogy skills. When reading acquisition was
Becoming literate in different languages 433
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
followed up longitudinally, both treatment groups main-
tained their gains over an unseen control group, but the
rhyme analogy group scored significantly above this
group on all four of the reading outcome measures,
whereas the letter-recoding group only scored signific-
antly above this group on two of the four outcome
measures.
A third approach has been whole word teaching (the
so-called ‘look and say’ methods of reading in and out
of vogue since the 1950s). In whole word teaching, chil-
dren are taught to recognize words as holistic units, for
example via the use of flash cards (the whole word is
‘flashed’ at the child, who must learn a pattern–sound
correspondence). ‘Look and say’ methods were shown to
result in slower learning than any phonics-based methods
(irrespective of grain size) by the work of Chall and
others in the 1970s (e.g. Chall, 1967). Exactly the same
conclusion was reached recently by the National Read-
ing Panel (2000) study of early reading in the USA. The
National Reading Panel also compared the effect sizes
reported for ‘large unit’ versus ‘small unit’
phonics
teach-
ing using a meta-analysis of relevant studies. The meta-
analysis showed that the impact of early ‘large unit’
teaching versus early ‘small unit’ teaching was statistic-
ally indistinguishable, though the impact was signific-
ant in each case (see Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster,
Yaghoub-Zadeh & Shanahan, 2001). This meta-analysis
supports the experimental findings obtained by Walton
and his colleagues.
Taken together, all three approaches to teaching reading
have a role to play in developing efficient word recognition
in relatively inconsistent orthographies (Rayner
et al.
,
2001). For English, some words (like ‘choir’, ‘people’,
‘yacht’) have to be learned as distinct patterns, because
they have no orthographic neighbors at all. Other words,
like ‘light’, contain rime spellings that are common to
many other words (90 words in English use the rime
pattern ‘-ight’ and are hence orthographic neighbors of
‘light’), and pronunciation at the rime level is consistent
across the neighborhood. Still other words are quite con-
sistent for letter–phoneme recoding (‘cat’, ‘dog’, ‘pen’),
and are easily recoded by traditional ‘phonics’. Never-
theless, small grain size teaching works especially well in
languages with consistent letter–sound correspondences.
It is an empirical question whether children learning to
read such consistent orthographies would benefit from
direct teaching at complementary grain sizes; certainly
such tuition does not seem to do any harm, if children
already have a strong phonological foundation and/or
enough exposure to literacy (e.g. Durguno
g
lu & Oney,
1999). A related empirical question is whether there is a
level of cognitive architecture for reading that develops
only
for inconsistent orthographies.
Developmental footprints on skilled reading
Do we need to consider developmental differences for
our understanding of skilled reading? One could argue
that the final product of reading development is the
same in different languages despite different develop-
mental trajectories. But is this the case? To address this
issue, German and English skilled readers were asked to
read aloud words that had highly similar spelling, sound
and meaning in both languages (e.g.
zoo
in English
versus
Zoo
in German; Ziegler, Perry, Jacobs & Braun,
2001). These words were not loan words in the respective
languages, but genuine German and English words.
Orthographic rime effects were used as a marker for
‘large unit’ processing and word length effects as a
marker for ‘small unit’ processing. It was expected that
German readers would show stronger length effects for
the same items compared to English readers, because
their basic processing unit is small. In contrast, English
readers were expected to show stronger rime effects than
German readers. This is exactly what was found, for
both word and nonword reading. This preference must
have been developmentally established, as similar patterns
are found in children (Goswami
et al.
, 1998).
Interestingly, recent simulation work (Perry & Ziegler,
2002) showed that a connectionist learning model (i.e.
the dual process model by Zorzi
et al.
(Zorzi, Houghton
& Butterworth, 1998)) could not predict the behavioral
patterns found. This was because the greater consistency
of the German orthography actually drove the German
model to process larger units rather than smaller units.
The model adopted the opposite processing pattern to
the one observed for the German adults. At the same
time, the dual route cascaded model (DRC; Coltheart,
Rastle, Perry, Langdon & Ziegler, 2001), which can pre-
dict the length effect found in German (i.e. the small
grain size effect), could not predict the greater reliance
of English adults on orthographic rime units. This is
probably because neither phonological nor orthographic
processing is sensitive to rime size units in this model.
Thus, data such as these seem to suggest that skilled
reading cannot be fully understood unless one takes into
account the footprints that development leaves on reading.
Implications for theories of reading
Until recently, the most prominent cross-language read-
ing theory has been the
orthographic depth hypothesis
(ODH; Frost, Katz & Bentin, 1987; Katz & Frost, 1992),
which was based on the dual route model of reading
(Coltheart
et al.
, 2001). The ODH does not postulate
that different psycholinguistic units develop in response
434 Johannes C. Ziegler and Usha Goswami
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
to differences in orthography. Rather, the ODH suggests
that readers adapt their reliance on the ‘orthographic’
(whole word recognition) or ‘phonological’ (recoding)
route, depending on the demands of the orthography.
In a consistent orthography, readers rely more on the
‘phonological’ or nonlexical route, because the mapping
between letters and sounds is relatively direct and un-
ambiguous. In an inconsistent orthography, readers rely
less on the phonological route and to a greater extent on
the lexical or ‘orthographic’ route.
One key prediction of the ODH is that phonological
effects should be reduced in a relatively inconsistent
orthography such as English. However, a large number
of studies found strong phonological effects in English
in a variety of paradigms (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner,
Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995; Van Orden, 1987;
Ziegler, Van Orden & Jacobs, 1997). Although Katz and
Frost correctly point out that such data only challenge
the strong version of the ODH, according to which
people who read deep orthographies
never
use phono-
logical information, such studies still show that phono-
logical processes play a role in reading both consistent
and inconsistent orthographies. Indeed, some of the
original advocates of the ODH have come to the follow-
ing conclusion: ‘We no longer believe that the difference
(between shallow and deep orthographies) is one of
whether or not phonology is routinely involved in visual
word recognition . . . we now think that the difference is
merely methodological, a matter of the greater simplicity
with which one can contrive an experimental demonstra-
tion of phonological involvement’ (Lukatela & Turvey,
1999, p. 1069).
Given that English seems to lie at the extreme end of
the consistency continuum with regard to orthography–
phonology relationships, it might even be the case that
the prominent dual route architecture (i.e. two separate
routes to pronunciation in the skilled reading system)
may in fact only develop for English. This is a particu-
larly striking idea given the large number of studies
of reading conducted in English, and the influence that
theoretical models of reading in English have had on
models in other languages.
Importance of grain size, reading strategy and
teaching method
How important are considerations of grain size for under-
standing reading development in different languages?
One test is to see whether existing connectionist learning
models derived for English can simulate reading develop-
ment in consistent and inconsistent orthographies with-
out taking differences in grain size, reading strategies
or teaching methods into account. To explore this
question, Hutzler
et al.
(Hutzler, Ziegler, Perry, Wimmer
& Zorzi, 2004) compared the performance of two major
connectionist reading models in two languages, the
triangle
model (Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg & Patterson, 1996)
and the
two-layer associative
model (Zorzi
et al.
, 1998).
These models were trained on a comparable database of
German and English words, and were tested on an iden-
tical set of German and English nonwords at different
stages during the process of learning to read. The
authors found that both models showed an overall
advantage for the more consistent orthography (i.e. an
advantage for German over English). However, the
networks exhibited no cross-language differences during
initial learning phases. Rather, there were increasingly
large differences during later learning phases. This is the
opposite of the empirical pattern (Frith
et al.
, 1998;
Goswami
et al.
, 2001), where German beginning readers
outperform English beginning readers but differences
are attenuating by a reading age of around 10 years.
It seems that the models fail to capture the cross-
language learning rate effect because they only deal with
the
implicit
aspects of the learning process. Both models
are presented with words that are fully segmented into
letters, and they learn about their correspondences with
a phonology that is already fully specified in terms of
phonemes. In essence, the
connection
between the two
domains is the only thing that is learned. The models
behave as if they already contained fully specified ortho-
graphic and phonological representations prior to read-
ing. Also, the learning process itself is modelled as
beyond the control of the reader or the teacher – it is
implicit. In real life, however, learning to read starts out
with
explicit
processes, such as the explicit teaching of
small grain-size correspondences. It is these explicit
processes and their potential interactions with the more
implicit aspects of lexical processing that are missing
from the models.
As we have argued, a key feature of learning to read
consistent orthographies is the reliability of correspond-
ences at small grain sizes. This boosts the acquisition of
phonological recoding and phonemic awareness, espe-
cially during the early phases of reading acquisition, and
seems to have long-lasting effects on the skilled reading
system (Ziegler
et al.
, 2001). Given that current connec-
tionist learning models are not sufficiently sensitive to
the fact that literacy acquisition in consistent ortho-
graphies starts out with explicit teaching of small-unit
correspondences, the failure of these models to fully
capture the empirical data is not surprising. In fact,
when Hutzler
et al.
(2004) pre-trained Zorzi’s two-layer
associative model on simple grapheme–phoneme cor-
respondences prior to the word learning process, thus
Becoming literate in different languages 435
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
imitating what happens during phonics teaching, the
model accurately predicted the cross-language learning
rate effect. Together, these data suggest that new connec-
tionist models need to be developed that can encompass
critical developmental processes.
Conclusions and future directions
The present review clearly suggests that future researchers
will need to integrate domains that have traditionally
worked in isolation. Classically researchers have
designed their experiments as though skilled reading was
unaffected by reading and language development. Here,
we suggest that future research needs to construct critical
manipulations that can track the mutual dependencies
across these domains at different points in development
and across different language environments. This is par-
ticularly important if the teaching of reading in different
languages is to be informed by an effective evidence
base. Systematic cross-language research conducted
within a psycholinguistic grain size framework is bound
to yield rich pedagogical rewards.
References
Brown, G.D.A., & Deavers, R.P. (1999). Units of analysis in
nonword reading: evidence from children and adults.
Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology
,
73
(3), 208–242.
Bruck, M., Genesee, F., & Caravolas, M. (1997). A cross-
linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In B.A. Blachman
(Ed.),
Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Impli-
cations for early intervention
(pp. 145–162). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Caravolas, M. (2006). Refining the psycholinguistic grain size
theory: effects of phonotactics and word formation on the
availability of phonemes to preliterate children.
Develop-
mental Science
,
9
(5), 445–447.
Chall, J.S. (1967).
Learning to read: The great debate
. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J.
(2001). DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word
recognition and reading aloud.
Psychological Review
,
108
(1), 204–256.
de Jong, P.F. (2006). Units and routes of reading in Dutch.
Developmental Science
,
9
(5), 441–442.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1998).
The national literacy strategy framework for teaching
. Sud-
bury: DfEE Publications.
Durguno
g
lu, A.Y. (2006). Learning to read in Turkish.
Develop
-
mental Science
,
9
(5), 437–439.
Durguno
g
lu, A.Y., & Oney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic com-
parison of phonological awareness and word recognition.
Reading and Writing
,
11
, 281–299.
Durguno
g
lu, A.Y., & Oney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness
in literacy development: it’s not only for children.
Scientific
Studies of Reading
,
6
, 245–266.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.A., Schuster, B.V.,
Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic
awareness instruction helps children learn to read: evidence
from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis.
Reading
Research Quarterly
,
36
, 250–287.
Ellis, N.C., & Hooper, A.M. (2001). Why learning to read is
easier in Welsh than in English: orthographic transparency
effects evinced with frequency-matched tests.
Applied Psy-
cholinguistics
,
22
, 571–599.
Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in
phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking
children.
Scientific Studies of Reading
,
2
(1), 31–54.
Frost, R. (2006). Becoming literate in Hebrew: the grain size
hypothesis and Semitic orthographic systems.
Developmental
Science
,
9
(5), 439–440.
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual
word recognition and orthographical depth: a multilingual
comparison.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance
,
13
(1), 104–115.
Goswami, U. (1986). Children’s use of analogy in learning to
read: a developmental study.
Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology
,
42
, 73–83.
Goswami, U., Gombert, J.E., & de Barrera, L.F. (1998). Chil-
dren’s orthographic representations and linguistic trans-
parency: nonsense word reading in English, French, and
Spanish.
Applied Psycholinguistics
,
19
(1), 19–52.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J.C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W.
(2001). Pseudohomophone effects and phonological recod-
ing procedures in reading development in English and
German.
Journal of Memory and Language
,
45
(4), 648–
664.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J.C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003).
Nonword reading across orthographies: how flexible is the
choice of reading units?
Applied Psycholinguistics
,
24
, 235–
247.
Hutzler, F., Ziegler, J.C., Perry, C., Wimmer, H., & Zorzi, M.
(2004). Do current connectionist learning models account
for reading development in different languages? Cognition,
91 (3), 273–296.
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different
for different orthographies: the orthographic depth hypo-
thesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology,
morphology, and meaning: Advances in psychology, Vol. 94
(pp. 67–84). Oxford: North-Holland.
Landerl, K. (2000). Influences of orthographic consistency and
reading instruction on the development of nonword reading
skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 239–
257.
Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M.T. (1999). Reading in two alpha-
bets. American Psychologist, 53, 1057–1072.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on read-
ing and its implications for reading instruction. Washington,
DC: NICHD Clearing House (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/
publications/nrp/smallbook.htm).
436 Johannes C. Ziegler and Usha Goswami
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Paulesu, E. (2006). On the advantage of ‘shallow’ orthogra-
phies: number and grain size of the orthographic units or
consistency per se? Developmental Science, 9 (5), 443–444.
Perfetti, C.A., Beck, I., Bell, L., & 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., & Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during
the first 40 ms of word identification: evidence from back-
ward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Lan-
guage, 30 (4), 473 –485.
Perry, C., & Ziegler, J.C. (2002). Cross-language computa-
tional investigation of the length effect in reading aloud.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 28 (4), 990–1001.
Plaut, D.C., McClelland, J.L., Seidenberg, M.S., & Patterson, K.
(1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading:
computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psycho-
logical Review, 103 (1), 56–115.
Pugh, K. (2006). A neurocognitive overview of reading acqui-
sition and dyslexia across languages. Developmental Science,
9 (5), 448–450.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., &
Seidenberg, M.S. (2001). How psychological science informs
the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 2, 31–74.
Rayner, K., Sereno, S.C., Lesch, M.F., & Pollatsek, A. (1995).
Phonological codes are automatically activated during
reading: evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm.
Psychological Science, 6 (1), 26–32.
Seymour, P.H.K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Founda-
tion literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British
Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Share, D.L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching:
sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55 (2), 151–
218.
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-
Welty, E.D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description,
use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 124 (2), 107–136.
Van Orden, G.C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: spelling, sound,
and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15 (3), 181–198.
Walton, P.D., Bowden, M.E., Kurtz, S.L., & Angus, M.
(2001a). Evaluation of a rime-based reading program with
Shuswap and Heiltsuk First Nations prereaders. Reading
and Writing, 14, 229 –264.
Walton, P.D., & Walton, L.M. (2002). Beginning reading by
teaching in rime analogy: effects on phonological skills,
letter–sound knowledge, working memory and word-reading
strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 79–115.
Walton, P.D., Walton, L.M., & Felton, K. (2001b). Teaching
rime analogy or letter recoding reading strategies to pre-readers:
effects on prereading skills and word reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 160–180.
Wimmer, H. (2006). Don’t neglect reading fluency! Develop-
mental Science, 9 (5), 447 –448.
Ziegler, J.C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition,
developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across lan-
guages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 131 (1), 3 –29.
Ziegler, J.C., Perry, C., Jacobs, A.M., & Braun, M. (2001).
Identical words are read differently in different languages.
Psychological Science, 12 (5), 379–384.
Ziegler, J.C., Stone, G.O., & Jacobs, A.M. (1997). What is the
pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for u/? A database
for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in
English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Com-
puters, 29 (4), 600 –618.
Ziegler, J.C., Van Orden, G.C., & Jacobs, A.M. (1997). Pho-
nology can help or hurt the perception of print. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perform-
ance, 23 (3), 845 –860.
Zorzi, M., Houghton, G., & Butterworth, B. (1998). Two
routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process
model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Percep-
tion and Performance, 24 (4), 1131–1161.
