This study examined the crosslinguistic sharing of morphological awareness (MA) in biliteracy development. The analysis included 34 correlational studies with 41 independent samples (N = 4,104). Correlational coefficients were meta‐analyzed, yielding four main findings: (a) the correlation between first language (L1) and second language (L2) MA was small (r = .30); (b) the interlingual correlations between L1 MA and L2 word decoding and between L1 MA and L2 reading comprehension were both small (r = .35, .39, respectively); (c) the intralingual correlations between L2 MA and L2 word decoding and between L2 MA and L2 reading comprehension were both moderate (r = .46, .52, respectively); and (d) MA measurement type and age were significant moderators. Our review suggests that there is a need for future research to align the definition and measurement of MA.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The authors examined the complexity of the simple view of reading, focusing on morphological decoding fluency in fourth‐grade readers of English in Singapore. The participants were three groups of students who all learned to become bilingual and biliterate in the English language (EL) and their respective ethnic language in school but differed in the home language they used. The first group was ethnic Chinese students who used English as the dominant home language (Chinese EL1); the other two groups were ethnic Chinese and Malay students whose dominant home language was not English but Chinese (Chinese EL2) and Malay (Malay EL2), respectively. The measures included pseudoword decoding (phonemic decoding), timed decoding of derivational words (morphological decoding fluency), oral vocabulary, and passage comprehension. Path analysis showed that oral vocabulary significantly predicted reading comprehension across all three groups, yet a significant effect of morphological decoding fluency surfaced in the Chinese EL1 and Malay EL2 groups but not the Chinese EL2 group. Multigroup path analysis and commonality analysis further confirmed that morphological decoding played a larger role in the Chinese EL1 and Malay EL2 groups. These findings are discussed in light of the joint influence of target‐language experience and cross‐linguistic influence on second‐language or bilingual reading development.

No abstract

No abstract

Bilingualism has permeated people's life in our current globalized world. However, as Shin aptly points out in this book, there are still major misconceptions of bilingualism arising from the traditional monolingual ideology. To overcome this, bilingualism should be understood as a phenomenon in its own right. Shin presents state-of-the-art knowledge of this issue by reviewing and discussing up-to-date empirical research from two overarching aspects -the social and educational needs of bilingual/multilingual children and adults around the world.There are nine chapters in this book. The first three chapters situate bilingualism against the backdrop of globalization and describe the sociopolitical forces that contribute to the growth of bilingualism. Chapters 4-6 introduce specific phenomena and characteristics associated with bilingualism, including heritage language education, bilingualism and identity, and code-switching. Chapters 7-9 provide practical implications by discussing English Learners (ELs) education, educational models in additive bilingualism, and multilingual education at home.While introducing readers to a variety of theoretical traditions in bilingualism research, Shin mainly takes the stance of a sociolinguist in this book. Over the last decade, one of the major changes in sociolinguistic research on bilingualism/multilingualism is a shift of focus on the social, cultural, and linguistic changes caused 'by globalization, by transnational populations flows, by the advent of new communication technologies, by the changes taking place in the political and economic landscape of different regions of the world' (Martin-Jones and Gardner 2012, 1). Shin's discussion on bilingualism manifests this trend.As shown in Chapter 2 Bilingualism in a globalized world, the advance of modern technology, especially the Internet, has provided great opportunities for people across the world to communicate in an interconnected manner. On the other hand, globalization poses threats to the preservation of minority languages and corresponding identity maintenance with the spreading of English as a lingua franca. It is often held that when a language dies, the culture and knowledge in it dies as well (e.g., Harrison 2007). However, against the globalization context, the notion of simply linking language with ethnic identity is challenged by the position of understanding language as a marketable commodity (Heller 2003). For example, English is a desirable commodity/skill that attracts people's investment in modern society. Shin also discusses four global flows that contribute to our understanding of linguistic and cultural diversity in modern society, including transnational migration, popular music, advertising, and the Internet. People often use English as the dominant language for formal communication while code-mixing English with their local languages in music (e.g., Korean pop songs), advertising and internet language. This