The role of phonemic awareness in second language reading

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of disparate L1 (first language) alphabetic experience on L2 (second language) phonemic awareness and decoding among ESL (English as a Second Language) readers with alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 orthographic backgrounds. It was hypothesized that amount of L1 alphabetic experience is causally related to the development of L2 phonemic awareness and decoding skills. The specific objectives were threefold: to compare varying aspects of phonemic awareness among Chinese and Korean ESL learners; to explore the relationship between L2 phonemic awareness and decoding skills;and to examine the extent to which L2 text comprehension is facilitated by phonemic awareness and decoding skills. Data demonstrated that the two groups differed neither in their phonemic awareness nor in decoding;phonemic awareness was differentially related to decoding performance between the groups; and strong interconnections existed between reading comprehension, decoding and phonemic awareness among Korean participants, but no such direct relationships occurred among Chinese. Viewed collectively, these findings seem to suggest that, while differential L1 orthographic experience is not directly associated with L2 phonemic awareness, variations in prior processing experience may engender the use of diverse phonological processing procedures and, thus, account for qualitative differences in L2 processing behaviours.

Word Reading Efficiency, Text Reading Fluency, and Reading Comprehension Among Chinese Learners of English

“…By contrast, students of an alphabetic language background may rely on predictable orthography-tophonology correspondence in L1 word learning. There is evidence that Chinese learners of English are different from students of an alphabetic L1 background in phonetic awareness and decoding processes (Koda, 1998). The different strategy in phonemic decoding and word learning may have important implications for the development of reading fluency and reading comprehension among Chinese EFL readers.…”

Biliteracy and Bilingual Development in a Second-Generation Korean Child: A Case Study

“…In fact, Korean letters were scientifically developed to fit the Korean language, which is syllabic. Consequently, Korean-English bilingual students tend to more easily recognize symbol-sound correspondence in Korean than in English (Koda, 1998;Shin, 2005 Many children in the United States are living in an environment where English literacy and oral language are highly prized and where children are provided not only with English oral language input but also instruction in English literacy on a scale that seems nearly impossible to match with spoken heritage language and literacy input. This exposure to English oral language and English literacy, and the potential benefits of this valuable linguistic code (Wong-Fillmore, 1991a), appears to override individuals' and families' value on spoken home language and literacy retention.…”

“…For example, he exhibited an increased understanding that: 1) letters are written from left to right and top to bottom; 2) letters should be in an imaginary square box; 3) letters usually are written to allow spaces between words, but not in all cases; and 4) Korean letters are not capitalized (Koda, 1998).…”

Second Language Reading, Scripts, and Orthographies

“…Inasmuch as the critical contrast between alphabetic and logographic literacy lies in the relative reliance on phonological and graphic information during decoding, in these studies, L2 stimulus words were manipulated either phonologically (e.g., blocking phonological information by replacing words with unpronounceable symbols, such as ; Koda, 1990) or graphically (e.g., creating visual distortion by replacing real words, such as "read," with their case altered version "ReAd"; Akamatsu, 1999), and the magnitude of the manipulation employed was compared among L2 learners with contrasting L1 backgrounds. Their data demonstrated that diverse L2 learner groups responded differently to the two types of manipulation (Green & Meara, 1987;Koda, 1998;Akamatsu, 1999) and that the reported differences were identifi able with the orthographic properties of the participants' respective fi rst languages (Koda, 1990(Koda, , 1993Ryan & Meara, 1991). Viewed together, these fi ndings suggest that previously acquired L1 mapping skills are involved in L2 reading development, systematically altering L2 decoding behaviors.…”