Lexical quality and executive control predict children’s first and second language reading comprehension

Abstract

This study compared how lexical quality (vocabulary and decoding) and executive control (working memory and inhibition) predict reading comprehension directly as well as indirectly, via syntactic integration, in monolingual and bilingual fourth grade children. The participants were 76 monolingual and 102 bilingual children (mean age 10 years, SD = 5 months) learning to read Dutch in the Netherlands. Bilingual children showed lower Dutch vocabulary, syntactic integration and reading comprehension skills, but better decoding skills than their monolingual peers. There were no differences in working memory or inhibition. Multigroup path analysis showed relatively invariant connections between predictors and reading comprehension for monolingual and bilingual readers. For both groups, there was a direct effect of lexical quality on reading comprehension. In addition, lexical quality and executive control indirectly influenced reading comprehension via syntactic integration. The groups differed in that inhibition more strongly predicted syntactic integration for bilingual than for monolingual children. For a subgroup of bilingual children, for whom home language vocabulary data were available (n = 56), there was an additional positive effect of home language vocabulary on second language reading comprehension. Together, the results suggest that similar processes underlie reading comprehension in first and second language readers, but that syntactic integration requires more executive control in second language reading. Moreover, bilingual readers additionally benefit from first language vocabulary to arrive at second language reading comprehension.

Word-to-text integration in English as a second language reading comprehension

“…This WTI-index measure is easily applicable within a school setting. Furthermore, while previous studies demonstrated what the WTI process looks like in younger children learning Dutch as an L2 (van den Bosch et al, 2018;Raudszus, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2018 and adult learners (Calloway & Perfetti, 2017;Helder et al, 2019;Stafura et al, 2015), the current study added to this body of literature demonstrating three types of integration in 7 th grade English as an L2 learners. To conclude, we provided a perspective on word-to-text integration in early English L2 learners.…”

The Impact of Bilingualism on Executive Functions in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review Based on the PRISMA Method

“…In most studies, information on the participants' linguistic background was collected through interviews or questionnaires made to their caregivers. In two studies, the information was collected by directly interviewing the participants (Jalali-Moghadam and Kormi-Nouri, 2015 ; Raudszus et al, 2018 ). The analyzed studies reported different definitions of bilingualism; some of these definitions are based on the assessment of the competences in the two languages; others are founded on the age of acquisition of the two languages.…”

“…Eighteen studies (Danahy et al, 2007 ; Bialystok and Feng, 2009 ; Bialystok and Viswanathan, 2009 ; Bialystok, 2010 ; Engel de Abreu, 2011 ; Kapa and Colombo, 2013 ; Blom et al, 2014 , 2017 ; Engel de Abreu et al, 2014 ; Filippi et al, 2015 ; Garraffa et al, 2015 ; Buac et al, 2016 ; Cockcroft, 2016 ; Bosman and Janssen, 2017 ; Raudszus et al, 2018 ; Veenstra et al, 2018 ; Hartanto et al, 2019 ; Jaekel et al, 2019 ) evaluated working memory by using different versions of the digit span task. In 12 studies (Danahy et al, 2007 ; Bialystok and Feng, 2009 ; Bialystok and Viswanathan, 2009 ; Engel de Abreu, 2011 ; Kapa and Colombo, 2013 ; Engel de Abreu et al, 2014 ; Filippi et al, 2015 ; Garraffa et al, 2015 ; Cockcroft, 2016 ; Blom et al, 2017 ; Raudszus et al, 2018 ; Veenstra et al, 2018 ) no significant differences between the two groups emerged. In three studies, monolinguals remembered a significantly higher number of digits than bilinguals in the forward digit span task (Buac et al, 2016 ; Bosman and Janssen, 2017 ) and backward digit span (Jaekel et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Seven studies (Poarch and van Hell, 2012 ; Gathercole et al, 2014 ; Mohades et al, 2014 ; Ross and Melinger, 2017 ; Raudszus et al, 2018 ; Struys et al, 2018 ; Zeng et al, 2019 ) used the Simon Task (Simon and Wolf, 1963 ). In two studies (Poarch and van Hell, 2012 ; Raudszus et al, 2018 ), no significant differences emerged between the monolingual and the bilingual groups. Two studies (Ross and Melinger, 2017 ; Zeng et al, 2019 ) found a lower percentage of errors in the bilingual group than to the monolingual group, while there were no differences between the two groups in reaction times and the Simon effect.…”

Relating Lexical and Syntactic Knowledge to Academic English Listening: The Importance of Construct Representation

“…It is also interesting to compare the findings of these studies to similar studies on L2 reading. Studies on the relative significance of lexical and syntactic knowledge in L2 reading have also yielded mixed results-some studies found a greater contribution of lexical knowledge (Bossers, 1992;Brisbois, 1995;Yamashita, 1999), while others reported heavier regression weights of syntactic knowledge (Shiotsu and Weir, 2007). Shiotsu and Weir (2007) emphasized the difference between a structural equation model and a regression model but also noted that sample size, test difficulty relative to the participants, characteristics of the participants, and the nature and reliabilities of the instruments used are important methodological factors that may explain the differences between studies.…”