Cognitive Precursors of Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective

Abstract

In this paper, we survey current evidence on cognitive precursors of reading in different orthographies by reviewing studies with a cross-linguistic research design. Graphic symbol knowledge, phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and rapid automatized naming were found to be associated with reading acquisition in all orthographies investigated. However, apart from rapid naming, this association is mostly interactive, meaning that young children develop their symbol knowledge, and phonological and morphological awareness during reading development. Especially for phonological awareness, crosslinguistic evidence involving phonologically transparent orthographies, both alphabetic and non-alphabetic, suggests that it may be less of a hurdle than in the complex English orthography. Cross-linguistic research designs can be a useful methodological approach to test limits of reading theories that were initially developed for alphabetic orthographies.Learning to read entails mapping the units of the writing system onto the corresponding spoken language units. In order to read a word or text, a child must be able to decode the graphic units of a particular orthography into spoken language units (e.g., morphemes, syllables, phonemes). During reading acquisition, children not only learn how written words are composed, but also build up orthographic representations of spoken language units (typically words or morphemes). Reading becomes fluent, when (1) decoding is automatized and (2) words can be directly and effortlessly retrieved from the orthographic lexicon (see also Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2021).By the time children commence formal reading instruction, they have typically already begun to acquire key knowledge and skills that will be associated with their subsequent success in learning. Cognitive precursors of reading are skills whose development starts prior to reading and which are functionally related to later reading skills . In order to decode words, children need to be familiar with the graphic symbols of the writing system (e.g., letters of an alphabet, Chinese characters). They should also become aware of the linguistic units represented by a particular orthography (phonological and morphological awareness). In addition, naming speed, that is the ability to name visual information quickly and effortlessly, is associated with (later) reading fluency. It is important to note that a precursor does not have to be fully established before the onset of reading acquisition. It is also possible that interacting with a writing system induces developmental steps that would not happen without this exposure. However, if these skills cannot be properly developed even in the context of reading exposure, reading difficulties are likely to appear in the long run.The precursors mentioned above can be assumed to play a role in any orthography. However, orthographies vary widely in how exactly they represent spoken language and, accordingly, crosslinguistic theories of reading development predict that the relevance of, an...

Scripts’ influence on reading processes and cognition: a preamble

“…There have been some studies probing the first (e.g., Huettig & Mishra, 2014;Morais et al, 1986;Wolf, 2015) and the second (e.g., Georgiou et al, 2008;Landerl et al, 2021;Nag & Perfetti, 2014;Prakash et al, 1993;Rao et al, 2017;Winskel & Kim, 2021) question. These studies show enough evidence favoring the view that there are certain differences between literate and illiterate minds/brains in their functional organization.…”

Brain responses during auditory word recognition vary with reading ability in Chinese school‐age children

“…Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the role of phonological processing in Chinese reading acquisition and the corresponding neuro‐cognitive mechanisms. The increasing number of studies support the importance of phonological processing in Chinese reading development (Chow et al., 2005; Chung & Bidelman, 2021; Landerl et al., 2021; Liet al., 2012; Shu et al., 2008; Siok & Fletcher, 2001; Wang & Bi, 2021). For example, researchers found that children with dyslexia manifested deficits in speech perception (e.g., lexical tones were less categorically perceived) (Cheung et al., 2009) and showed abnormal neural responses (Zhang et al., 2012).…”

“…It is worth noting that while the neural signature for fluent reading is universal (Rueckl et al., 2015), linguistic characteristics, such as orthographic depth, can modulate the precise manifestations of particular components in the reading system (Richlan, 2014). Thus, testing a hypothesis developed in specific languages with other languages characterized by different linguistic features is necessary for clarifying its universality (Landerl et al., 2021). In terms of the speech‐reading relationship, letters directly code speech sounds in alphabetic languages, known as grapheme‐phoneme correspondence (GPC).…”

“…At the behavioral level, studies conducted in Mandarin‐speaking communities have demonstrated the importance of speech processing skills (e.g., phonological awareness) in Chinese reading acquisition (Chow et al., 2005; Chung & Bidelman, 2021; Landerl et al., 2021; Li et al., 2012; Shu et al., 2008; Siok & Fletcher, 2001) and identifying children with dyslexia (Wang & Bi, 2021). At the brain level, studies have revealed impaired speech perception (e.g., categorical perception of lexical tone) in Chinese children with dyslexia (Cheung et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2012).…”

Predicting Word Reading Deficits Using an App-Based Screening Tool at School Entry

“…Predictors associated with visual processing such as visual memory span at kindergarten age ( 29 ) have been researched experimentally, but to our knowledge, there is still a lack of established test paradigms shown to be feasible within school-based screenings. Related to linguistically based predictors in alphabetic languages, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and Rapid Automatized Naming-speed (RAN) have been demonstrated as robust predictors of word reading even across different orthographies and a number of reliable and practicable test paradigms have been developed ( 30 ). These factors, often summarized as phonological information processing ( 31 , 32 ), are frequently supplemented by phonological working memory ( 33 ).…”