Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish-English and Chinese-English bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes.

Abstract

This study examined cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish-English and Chinese-English bilinguals. Participants included 51 Spanish-English and 64 Chinese-English bilinguals. Both groups of children completed parallel measures of phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, word reading accuracy, and word reading fluency in their first language (LI) and in English, their second language (L2) in Grade 1. Word reading accuracy and word reading fluency were assessed in LI and L2 again in Grade 2. Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy was found only in the Spanish-English bilinguals. In contrast, cross-language transfer of word reading fluency was found in both the Spanish-English bilinguals and the Chinese-English bilinguals. Our results suggest transfer of word reading accuracy is based on the structural similarities between the LI and L2 scripts. By contrast, word reading fluency operates largely as a script-universal process. Implications for reading theory and for assessment and instruction of bilingual children are discussed.

The association between reading abilities and visual‐spatial attention in Hong Kong Chinese children

“…Reading fluency was measured by a test previously used in Pasquarella, Chen, Gottardo, and Geva (2015). It required the children to read as many Chinese words as possible in 45 s. The task included 104 words ordered by increasing difficulty, including 21 single-character words, 76 two-character words, 5 three-character words, and 2 four-character words.…”

Working Memory in Spanish–English and Chinese–English Bilinguals

“…A group of literature [13], [14], [18] regarding bilingual working memory with emphasis on executive tasks or working memory tasks indicated bilinguals have higher performance than monolinguals when looking at tasks of verbal and spatial working memory span task, visuospatial working memory tasks, conflict resolution, and individually administrated battery of tests. The research on bilinguals uses two distinct bilingual groups such as Spanish-English which are two similar languages, and Chinese-English which are two completely different languages, as participant samples [3], [19], [20]. There are many reasons for setting Spanish-English as two similar languages and Chinese-English as two completely different languages.…”

“…To search more specifically on bilinguals in groups, there have been studies conducted primarily in Spanish-English and Chinese-English bilingual groups [3], [19], [20]. There are some differences in bilinguals' executive control advantage between Spanish-English and Chinese-English speakers.…”

“…For example, Spanish-English bilinguals have smaller task-switching costs which in a faster speed of response, as well as more frequently switching languages than Chinese-English speakers [20]. In another task, the cross-language transfers were more accurate in Spanish-English bilinguals, however, Spanish-English and Chinese-English bilinguals both transferred word reading fluently [19]. Although Spanish-English and Chinese-English bilinguals have different talents, these two studies infer Spanish-English bilinguals have a greater advantage in switching or transferring languages and tasks, while the Chinese-English speakers need to devote more working memory effort on these tasks [19], [20].…”

The Effect of a Suggested Multisensory Phonics Program on Developing Kindergarten Pre-service Teachers' EFL Reading Accuracy and Phonemic Awareness

“…Reading accuracy is the ability to decode words in a selection correctly (Allington et al, 2015;Morlini et al, 2015;Pasquarella et al, 2015;Taylor, 2013). The operational definition used in the current study refers to reading accuracy as the translation of printed words into a representation similar to oral language (Algozzine et al, 2008;Capraro, 2006;Carlson et al, 2013;HØIen-Tengesdal & TØNnessen, 2010;Hudson et al, 2011;Miller & Keenan, 2009;Padeliadu & Antoniou, 2013;Pikulski & Chard, 2005;Rautenberg, 2013;Suggate et al, 2014;Weiser, 2013).…”