Differentiating Between Automatic and Strategic Control Processes: Toward a Model of Cognitive Mobilization in Bilingual Reading

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in studying the effect of first language (L1) reading experience on second language (L2) literacy. Such crosslanguage influence in reading is understood as a particular case of the more general phenomenon of cognitive mobilization, which refers to the application of L1-related mechanisms to L2 processing . In this paper, we propose a model of cognitive mobilization for the bilingual reader. The model postulates an L1 and an L2 word recognition system the automaticity of which depends on language proficiency, and a language-neutral central system which entails effortful, strategic control processes. Under the assumptions of limited attentional resources and increasing L2 word recognition automaticity due to enhanced L2 proficiency, the model makes different predictions about cognitive mobilization in reading for bilingual readers at various levels of L2 proficiency. L1-to-L2 mobilization and topdown application of general reading strategies to L2 word decoding are similarly modelled. The paper contributes to the area by providing a framework for the formulation of working hypotheses about cognitive mobilization in reading.Key words: mobilization, reading, bilingual, automatic COGNITIVE MOBILIZATION IN BILINGUAL READINGWhat are the effects of first language (L1) reading experience on second language (L2) literacy development? The first locus of influence seems to occur at the level of orthography. Altenberg and Cairns (1983) tested German-English bilinguals and English monolinguals on English lexical decision. The stimulus set included items that were orthographically legal in both languages and those that were legal only in English. Results showed that the monolinguals were equally fast in making decisions on both types of items, whereas the bilinguals performed better on words that were legal only in English. The authors concluded that the bilinguals' experience in German (L1) interfered with their English (L2) lexical decision when the target items could also be German words (i.e., orthographically legal in German). On the other hand, interference did not occur when the targets did not look like German words at all (i.e., orthographically illegal in German).Cognitive mobilization in reading also takes place in terms of activation of L1 phonological information when reading L2 items. Nas (1983) tested Dutch-English bilinguals on English lexical decision with real English words, English nonwords, and

A Componential Approach for Bilingual Reading and Comparative Writing System Research: The Role of Phonology in Chinese Writing as a Test Case

“…Conceivably, a similar differentiation would unfold in L2 learning (Genesee, 2002; Paradis, 2004). However, as an autonomous cognitive domain, separate from the grammatical components, conceptual structure appears not to undergo this kind of division, remaining independent and “shared in common.” See Francis (2004, 2008) for alternatives for modeling this relationship in bilingualism based on Jackendoff's Tripartite Parallel Architecture and Cheung and Lin (2005) for a proposal along the same lines.…”