The Relative Contribution of L2 Language Proficiency and L1 Reading Ability to L2 Reading Performance: A Test of the Threshold Hypothesis in an EFL Context

Abstract

This study examines the contribution of L2 proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading ability in terms of the threshold hypothesis of language proficiency. Two hypotheses were tested: (a) The contribution of L2 proficiency is greater than the contribution of L1 reading ability in predicting L2 reading ability, and (b) a threshold level of language proficiency exists such that learners with low levels of L2 proficiency will show little relationship between their L1 and L2 reading ability whereas learners with higher levels of L2 proficiency will show a positive relationship between their L1 and L2 reading performance. The participants were 809 Korean 3rd‐year middle school and 1st‐year high school students who exhibited a wide range of ability in reading both Korean and English and in their English proficiency. Scores from the three measures were subjected to descriptive, inferential, and correlational analyses. The results provided support for both hypotheses. Learners need to establish some knowledge of an L2 per se before they can successfully draw on their L1 reading ability to help with reading in the L2.

Relations among L1 Reading, L2 Knowledge, and L2 Reading: Revisiting the Threshold Hypothesis

“…The finding was that the correlations between L1 reading and L2 reading showed, in general, a decreasing trend rather than an increasing trend according to the improvement of L2 knowledge. This finding is in contrast with a previous finding (Lee & Schallert, 1997) and the third formula schematized as following:…”

“…When students of L1, which is different from L2 in linguistic systems, read L2 texts, negative transfer rather than positive transfer may occur and strategic knowledge of L1 reading may not transfer to subsequent performances of L2 reading. Thus, contrary to the findings by Lee and Schallert (1997), it is not surprising to discover that the findings of this and other studies provided negative evidences to a language threshold which may be relative and subject to other variables (Park & Chae, 2000;Takakuwa, 2005).…”

“…The other 15 items which were developed to measure English vocabulary and English grammar were used to measure students' English knowledge, as per the recommendation of other researchers who attempted to examine a language threshold (Lee & Schallert, 1997;Pichette et al, 2003). All the three instruments were measured using multiple choice questions because regardless of a potential validity problem of a multiple choice question, it has advantage over other methods of testing in terms of reliability, being most commonly used worldwide in a reading comprehension test (Carrell, www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol.…”

“…The transferability of L1 reading to L2 reading has been discussed with the center of the short-circuit hypothesis or the threshold hypothesis (Alderson, 1984;Clarke, 1980). Regardless of the crucial importance of the threshold hypothesis in L2 reading, empirical studies to test the hypothesis have been regrettably limited and the findings, to date, have been surprisingly conflicted each other (Ardasheva et al, 2011;August, 2006;Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995;Bossers, 1991;Carrell, 1991;Jiang, 2011;Lee & Schallert, 1997;Park & Chae, 2000;Pichette et al, 2003;Taillefer, 1996). The conflicting findings might be in part attributable to L2 readers' native language that was intricately interwoven with other confounding variables including proficiency level, reading task, and learning context, and in part attributable to the lack of research methods used to test the hypothesis.…”

“…The only study that utilized the third way of data analysis was undertaken by Lee and Schallert (1997) Overall, research efforts have been made to investigate the threshold hypothesis which holds the transferability of strategic knowledge of L1 reading to L2 reading beyond a threshold level, utilizing different methods of data analysis and interpretation. However, the results of previous studies have shown conflicting results across studies undertaken by using L2 learners of different L1, at different proficiency levels, and in different learning contexts.…”