2013
DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2011.644796
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are alphabetic language -derived models of L2 reading relevant to L1 logographic background readers?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The grammatical knowledge for Chinese scripts was different from English scripts in function word sequences (Cheng et al, 2017;Chen et al, 2018). Past studies showed that the differences between logographical scripts (e.g., Chinese) and alphabetical scripts (e.g., English) were phonology, syntax, and semantic structure (Connor and Connor, 1996;Tsai et al, 2012;Ehrich et al, 2013). For example, Chinese scripts had its unique character structure in which most characters consisted of a radical part for the semantic function of the character and the object character for pronunciation function (e.g., McBride-Chang et al, 2003).…”
Section: Language Typementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The grammatical knowledge for Chinese scripts was different from English scripts in function word sequences (Cheng et al, 2017;Chen et al, 2018). Past studies showed that the differences between logographical scripts (e.g., Chinese) and alphabetical scripts (e.g., English) were phonology, syntax, and semantic structure (Connor and Connor, 1996;Tsai et al, 2012;Ehrich et al, 2013). For example, Chinese scripts had its unique character structure in which most characters consisted of a radical part for the semantic function of the character and the object character for pronunciation function (e.g., McBride-Chang et al, 2003).…”
Section: Language Typementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, Castles et al (2018) revealed that the foundation skill of metalinguistic knowledge might be PA for alphabetical language. However, Chinese logographic scripts' reading material has a very different cognition system from alphabetical scripts' reading material in terms of grammatical knowledge, character structure, and pronunciation rules (Tsai et al, 2012;Ehrich et al, 2013). Alphabetical language (e.g., English) followed spelling-to-sound mappings (Zhu et al, 2014); that is, most alphabetical languages have a left-to-right structure of letter strings and use letters mapping on to the phonemes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Koreans exhibited significant links among the three variables, with around 50% of their RC variance explained by decoding; in contrast, the Chinese did not show any significant correlations among the variables, even though there were no differences in PA, decoding, or RC test scores between the two groups. These findings were interpreted as showing that the Chinese participants had explicit phoneme-manipulation skills but did not utilize them during the reading process, because they relied more on orthographic processing than on phonological processing (see also Ehrich, Zhang, Mu, & Ehrich, 2013). Koda (1998) thus suggested that L2-English readers without alphabetic reading experience in their L1 go through a qualitatively different cognitive process from those with an alphabetic L1 background.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, Bernhardt's () model of the second language reading process, which serves as a theoretical foundation for this teaching approach, was based on empirical data collected in a variety of Western languages. More recent research has also suggested that the core tenets of this model can be applied to language pairings that include logographic and syllabic scripts (Ehrich, Zhang, Mu, & Ehrich, ; Jiang, ). Moreover, the reading strategy of generating questions investigated in this study does not directly relate to the decoding process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%