Abstract
Computational models of reading posit that there are two pathways to word recognition, using sublexical phonology or morphological/orthographic information. They further theorize that everyone uses both pathways to some extent, but the division of labor between the pathways can vary. This review argues that the first language one was taught to read, and the instructional method by which one was taught, can have profound and long-lasting effects on how one reads, not only in one’s first language, but also in one’s second language. Readers who first learn a transparent orthography rely more heavily on the sublexical phonology pathway, and this seems relatively impervious to instruction. Readers who first learn a more opaque orthography rely more on morphological/orthographic information, but the degree to which they do so can be modulated by instructional method. Finally, readers who first learned to read a highly opaque morphosyllabic orthography use less sublexical phonology while reading in their second language than do other second language learners and this effect may be heightened if they were not also exposed to an orthography that codes for phonological units during early literacy acquisition. These effects of early literacy experiences on reading procedure are persistent despite increases in reading ability.
Highlights
Models of word reading have broadly identified two pathways to word recognition: first accessing pronunciation or first accessing meaning
The L2 research has demonstrated that L1 readers of morphosyllabic orthographies (Chinese, Japanese) tend to use less sublexical phonology than do L1 readers of more transparent orthographies (Korean, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Persian, Vietnamese) while reading in their second language, especially if they were not introduced to a phonologically based orthography such as pinyin or kana during literacy acquisition
These effects can be explained by the assimilation/accommodation hypothesis (Perfetti et al, 2007), which states that people only change their reading procedure if necessitated by the properties of the L2 orthography
Summary
Models of word reading have broadly identified two pathways to word recognition: first accessing pronunciation or first accessing meaning. Have compared English to more transparent orthographies (e.g., Serbo-Croatian, German, Albanian, Greek, Japanese hiragana, Welsh) or to more opaque orthographies (e.g., Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese kanji) They used signature manipulations, such as lexicality, homophonic/pseudohomophonic status, length, frequency, and semantic priming, to examine reading procedure. Semantic primes during naming tasks benefit readers of more opaque orthographies to a greater degree than readers of transparent orthographies (Katz and Feldman, 1983; Frost et al, 1987) Another way of measuring reading procedure is by forcing strategy changes. When reading Chinese texts, participants had longer first fixation durations for all orthographic mismatches This difference suggests that, while reading English, participants use phonology, orthography, and context to identify words.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
