Reading acquisition in SLA

1. OUT OF MY ORTHOGRAPHIC
DEPTH
SECOND LANGUAGE READING
Barbara Birch

2. What is the
purpose of
reading?
To get information
To study and learn
To access literature
To escape everyday reality

3. Given these purposes, the first goal for
reading instruction for learners is
■ To achieve decoding abilities so that they would allocate enough mental attention to
comprehend, internalize the ideas, and relax.
The purposes for L2 reading are the same as L1
reading, but there is a paradox in early L2
reading.

4. The paradox is
Fluency in L1
reading may hinder
fluency in L2
reading.
The effect is bigger
when orthographies
of languages are
different.

5. Let’s distinguish
A writing system An orthography A script

6. AWRITING SYSTEM IS ATECHNOLOGYTHAT ENCODES SPEECH
BY REPRESENTING UNITS OF LANGUAGEWITH GRAPHEMES.
•phonemic
•syllabic
•logographic

7. AN ORTHOGRAPHY IS
THE
IMPLEMENTATIONOF
AWRITING SYSTEM
TECHNOLOGY IN A
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
•Macedonian
•Mongolian
• different from each other, although they use almost the
same Cyrillic graphemes

8. A SCRIPT IS A
FONT USEDTO
REPRESENT AN
ORTHOGRAPHY.

9. A distinction between various writing systems and orthographies comes from a
comparison of how close or direct the correlation is between the graphemes
used and the unit of language represented in the writing.
Transparency Opacity

10. For an English learner whose L1 isTurkish,
What about the English orthography?
TRANSPARENT? OPAQUE?

11. Transfer in reading:
In reading, L1 to L2 transfer effects occur at the level of system, orthography,
or script.
FACILITATION INTERFERENCE
•The relationship between L1 knowledge and processing strategies and L2
acquisition

12. L1 Reading
Acquisition:
Regardless of
the writing
system or
orthography,
there are
universal
principles in L1
reading.
The processing principle
The interactive principle
The mapping principle
The phonology principle

13. THE
PROCESSING
PRINCIPLE
Reading relies on general knowledge storage in long term and short-term memory.

14. The
Interactive
Principle
Reading includes
cognition, language
knowledge, general
comprehension and
language-specific
strategies at once

15. THE MAPPING
PRINCIPLE
Reading requires mapping between speech and
graphemes in different writing systems

16. The
Phonology
Principle
■ Phonology is always
included in reading,
therefore it requires
phonemic awareness
and listening skills.

17. A MODEL OF
READING
PROCESSORS
declarative
knowledge
about the
world, culture,
experiences,
etc.
mapping

18. L1 Learner
Variables
■ The model presents a lot of variations in
how people learn to read.
– Sociocultural attitudes, personal
variables (gender, age, parental
behaviors, motivation, etc.)
– cognitive factors (memory limitations,
attention span, intelligence)
– physical factors (e.g., hearing)
– linguistic factors (phonological
awareness, depth of vocabulary
knowledge, etc.)

19. The Phonological Deficit Hypothesis

20. The Phonological Deficit Hypothesis
Knowledge of phonology and phonemic
processing strategies are necessary for reading.
A deficit might cause delays in learning to read
(spefically in opaque writing systems)
put forwards that that people with difficulties in phonological processing
will have problems about learning to read

21. Dyslexia is a reading
disorder that seems to
involve problems with
phonological processing.
The studies show that some systems and orthographies
facilitate recovery from dyslexia while others don’t

22. LinguisticVariation
There is a great amount of evidence supporting that linguistic variables make
some writing systems and orthographies harder to acquire.
The Orthographic Depth
Hypothesis (transparent or opaque)
Children learning a transparent
orthography learn to read faster.
The Syllable Complexity Hypothesis
Complex syllable structures increase
the difficulty in learning to read.

23. Cross-Linguistic Comparisons of Difficulty

24. Transparency
■ The more transparent the mapping from
grapheme to phoneme, the more the
reader can rely on print-to-sound
procedure
■ The more opaque the orthography, the
more the reader must come to rely on
other strategies for reading:
-probabilistic reasoning
-reasoning by analogy to known spelling
patterns
-morphological processing,
-accessing whole words from memory
-interpreting context
Transparency: one grapheme = one
phoneme
Opacity: each grapheme = more than one
phoneme (each phoneme may have several
spellings)
/ɪˈlevən/
ELEVEN (11)

25. Syllable Complexity

26. Syllable Complexity (Dancovicova, & Dellwo, 2007)
• The study shows that syllable complexity affects decoding ability of people
• Complex syllables were a disadvantage for beginning readers
• English has complex syllabic structures

27. Instructional
Methodologies
■ Alphabetic writing systems
are acquired in phases:
– Phase 1: acquisition of
the basic components
(grapheme to phoneme
correspondence)
– Phase 2: acquisition of
larger units such as
syllables, onsets, rimes,
and morphemes.

28. Instructional Methodologies
Transparent alphabets are generally taught using a method combining
synthetic phonics (letters are isolated from words and taught along
with their pronunciations) and blending (mmmm aaaaaa = ma).
English reading instruction begins with synthetic phonics and some
blending, but sight words are also taught as wholes.

29. What are sight words?
■ Words that should be memorized while a child
learning to read and write. Learning sight words
enables children to recognize the words quickly.
■ Sight words are high frequency words that make
reading easier and faster

30. When grapheme-to-phoneme
correspondences are irregular
Children need a lot of practice to get unconscious knowledge
The instruction is often given in onset and rimes
An analogical strategy based on known spelling patterns
Children are taught about common morphemes

31. Briefly
■ Transparent alphetic writing
systems can be taught by
simple synthetic strategies.
■ Opaque alphabetic writing
systems lead learners to
develop further strategies.

32. Going back to Dsylexia
■ Children with dyslexia often face phonological awareness, short-term memory, and
naming problems.
■ Literacy problems are greater for dyslexic children learning to read inconsistent
orthographies (e.g., English) than consistent orthographies (e.g., Italian,German,
Greek)
■ Research suggest that the same neurocognitive bases cause dyslexia but that different
orthographies influence the seriousness of the reading deficits and the ability to
recover (The study on Italian, French, English speakers with dyslexia)

33. L2 READING
ACQUISITION

34. Transfer
It is proven that learners simply refer to L1
knowledge when L2 knowledge is missing
(Krashen, 1983).
Gass and Selinker (1983) claimed that transfer
from L1 knowledge to L2 is an aspect of
interlanguage.
The earlier language background (L1) is a
resource that can help L2 learners if the forms,
functions, and the mappings are similar, and it
can also hinder if they are different.

35. LearnerVariables
L2 reading is fundamentally different from L1 reading
■ CALP (CommonAcademic Language Proficiency)
■ The assumption was that if people were fluent readers in their L1, it was because they
had strong syntactic, semantic, and discourse awareness, and then they should be
fluent readers in their L2 too. If learners were poor readers in their L2 it was because
they lacked CALP and would be expected to be poor L1 readers too.
■ There was little empirical evidence to substantiate this theory.

36. IS POOR FOREIGN
LANGUAGE READING A
“READING PROBLEM” OR
A “ LANGUAGE
PROBLEM”?

37. Alderson (1984) proposed two hypotheses based on the the relevant literature
The Developmental Interdependence
Hypothesis I
■ Poor reading in a foreign language is due to poor reading ability in the first language.
Poor first language readers will read poorly in the foreign language and good first
language readers will read well in the foreign language ... [or] poor foreign language
reading is due to incorrect strategies for reading that foreign language, strategies
which differ from the strategies for reading the native language.
The LinguisticThreshold Hypothesis I
■ Poor reading in a foreign language is due to inadequate knowledge of the target
language ... [or] poor foreign language reading is due to reading strategies in the first
language not being employed in the foreign language, due to inadequate knowledge
of the foreign language.Good first-language readers will read well in the foreign
language once they have passed a threshold of foreign language ability.

38. Reading Strategies (Ehri, 1998)
■ Stage 1: Reading is pre-alphabetic, top-down and meaning-based. It requires words as
symbols in long-term memory.
■ Stage 2: L2 learners of English acquire the matching details and connect graphemes to
phonemes using partial alphabetic knowledge and processing.
■ Stage 3: Practice makes grapheme-to-phoneme connections firm, and this is fully
alphabetic stage.
■ Stage 4: the consolidated alphabetic stage, readers use their extensive knowledge of
graphemic/phonemic mappings, as well as larger grain-sized onsets, rimes,
morphemes, and syllables to apply a strategy based on reasoning by analogy to known
spelling patterns.

39. Reading
Strategies
(Ehri, 1998)
■ For English, because of its opaque vowel
representations and its syllable
complexity, the transition from stage 3
probabilistic reasoning to stage 4
analogical reasoning is crucial.
■ L1 reading development can be
described as a somewhat sequential set
of stages of knowledge acquisition and
strategic development that readers go
through to cope with the properties of
their L1 language and writing system.

40. Reading Strategies
■ L2 readers from diverse L1s use qualitatively different procedures when
reading the same target language.
■ The procedural diversity can be identified with structural variations in
the L1s.
■ Transferred L1 competencies interact with L2 print input in complex but
predictable ways.
■ Therefore, L1 reading experience has lasting impacts on L2 reading
development and alters processing procedures for L2 print.
(Birch, 2011, p. 500)

41. Stages of development of
reading strategies in various
languages

42. System Assimilation or System Accommodation
The System Assimilation
Hypothesis
The brain uses its L1 processing network as is
to read a later orthography or writing system,
with no adjustment.
The System Accommodation
Hypothesis
The brain figures out a way to apply different
appropriate processing strategies to handle
the new writing system or orthography.
It was hypothesized that the L1 reading system can handle with L2 reading acquisition in two different
ways.

43. Strategic
Availability
• System accommodation will occur if earlier stages
and/or other processing strategies are available to
the L2 reader. Assimilation will happen when other
(earlier) stages and strategies of reading are not
available to the L2 reader.
The Strategic Availability Hypothesis
• Logographic reading strategies are universal
(possibly because they are innate symbolic
processing procedures) so accommodation to a
logographic system is always possible for L1 readers
of alphabetic (or syllabic) languages.
The Universal Logographic Hypothesis

44. Language Proficiency
■ There may also be proficiency effects, especially with opaque languages and/or languages with
complex syllable structures.
■ The Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis II
– Poor L2 reading is due to the unavailability of processing strategies from experience reading
earlier languages.This causes the brain to attempt to assimilate the existing processing strategies,
which may or may not lead to success.
■ The LinguisticThreshold Hypothesis II
– Poor L2 reading is because readers have not reached a threshold of L2 knowledge and
processing strategies that allow them to access available strategies or acquire new ones.When the
threshold is reached, the accumulation of L2 knowledge and experience causes cognitive
restructuring, with accommodation to the new writing system.

45. Orthographic
Distance
The Orthographic
Distance
Hypothesis
■ The closer (or more similar) the two
writing systems are in their properties,
the more facilitative transfer there will
be. (the opposite is possible, too)
■ The more similar two languages are in
terms of syllable structure or
orthography; the easier reading
acquisition should be.
■ It should be rather easy for a Spaniard to
learn to read Portuguese or Italian.

46. Implications
MORE INFORMATIONABOUT
L1 AND L2 READING
ACQUISITION
VARIABLES AFFECTINGTHE
READINGACQUSITION
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
LANGUAGES

47. References
■ Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language
problem.
■ Birch, B. (2011). Out of my orthographic depth: Second language reading. In Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 506-524). Routledge.
■ Dancovicova, J., & Dellwo, V. (2007). Czech speech rhythm and the rhythm
class hypothesis.
■ Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1983). LanguageTransfer in Language Learning. Issues in
Second Language Research. Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley MA 0l969.
■ Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language
acquisition theory. Language transfer in language learning, 135-153.