Comparing L1 and L2/FL Reading
Reading in LIseems acomplex process;research studies havelookedat the role ofvarious factors influencing reading comprehension, such as reading strategies,vocabulary, discourse organization orreader motiva
tions.The issue becomeseven more complexifthesubjectofinvestiga tion is reading inL2/FL. Students’ repertoire, i. e. knowledge readersdraw on while reading, becomeswider; readers employknowledgeandexpe riences related to both LI andL2/FL, factors that can either facilitate or hinder theprocess of L2/FL reading. Below several factors influencing L2/FL readingare discussed.
Linguistic Factors: Knowledge of Grammar, Vocabulary and Discourse Organization
First, let us discuss linguistic factors thatinfluence L2/FL reading. LI readers haveconsiderabletacit grammar knowledge before they beginto read. They arealsoequipped with thevocabulary knowledge of approx
imately 6000words (estimates forasix-year-old reader).Undoubtedly, this knowledge constitutes an important linguistic resourcebasefor be
ginner readers(Grabe and Stoller 2002: 43).
L2/FLreaders, by contrast, begin to read at the same time that they learn to use the language orally.They lack a repertoire of words that they have learnt in oral contexts and which can be matched with words they encounter in texts. In L2/FL classrooms, students often learn new words
from texts, without developing accurate letter-sound correspondences.
Researchers, e.g. Muljani, Koda and Moates (1998: 99), noticethat re
cently more attention is paid to lower-level aspects of reading and word recognition practice is highly recommended as away to develop auto- maticity and fluency, which are prerequisitesforhigher-level reading, i.e. comprehension.
ForbeginnerL2/FL students the reading situation is differentthan the one for LI beginnerreaders. At the beginning ofL2/FL instruction, textsare very oftenusedastasks to teach grammarand vocabulary, not as materials todevelop reading skills. If this wayof teaching continues, readers may develop a falseperception ofL2/FL reading, based on the assumption that texts are meant tobestudied as a source of new gram
mar and vocabulary, not to be read as media that communicate ideas.
Ithink this maylead to insufficient reading practice, devoid ofstrategic teaching, which emphasizesdeveloping an array of reading strategies to beused for different reading purposes.
Another factor facilitating reading in L2/FL is knowledge of dis
courseorganization.Itmay happen that readers understand most ofthe vocabulary in a text but they still cannotcomprehendthetext."Anysort of systematic attention tocluesthat reveal how authors attempt to re late ideas to one another or any sort of systematicattempt to impose structure upon a text, especiallyin some sort of visual representation ofthe relationships amongkeyideas, facilitates comprehension aswell as both short-term and long-term memory of the text” (Pearson and Fielding 1991:832).Contrastive rhetoric researchers (e. g. Connor 1996:
113-5) investigate how different languages organize texts and howfor
eign language readers produce texts. Kaplan (1997: 32) says that con
trastiverhetoric“positsthat speakers oftwo differentlanguages will or
ganize the same reality in different ways.” This is due to the fact that different languages will provide different languageresources to organize text.GrabeandStoller (2002: 60) pointout thefollowing factors thatmay influence L2 reading comprehension:
1) howtexts expressinterpersonal relationswith thereader (e. g.the use of“I”and "you” pronouns);
2) expectations about the amount of information embedded ina text;
and
3) assumptions about explicitguidance of readerinterpretation,e.g.by meansof supportingdetails.
Pedagogicstudies, e.g. Carrell (1985: 741), indicatethat sensitizingstu
dents to rhetorical organizationof texts canfacilitate L2/FLreading com
prehension.
Metalinguistic and Metacognitive Awareness
As has been mentioned above, learners approach and process LI texts equipped with a tacit knowledge of theirnativelanguage.However, due to direct language instruction their knowledge of L2/FL is more ex
plicit. With the recent stress in FL methodology on learner reflection on learning, students develop greater metacognitive awareness of how theylearnand what makes theirlearning successful. Grabeand Stoller (2002: 46) suggest taking advantage of metacognitive abilities students developed in learning a L2/FL to increasetheirawareness ofLI reading.
Theresearchers claim thatit may bemore beneficialto increaselearn
ers’ awarenessandpractice of strategiesthat are most useful for students in LI reading than practicing in L2/FLsituationsthe strategies that stu
dents have never used before.
Schoonen, Hulstijn and Bossers(1998: 89) investigated to whatex tent vocabulary knowledgeandmetacognitive knowledge account forLI and L2 reading comprehension. The study demonstratedthat vocabu laryhadagreater influence on L2 reading than on LI reading, especially atlowerlevels,whereas metacognitive knowledge was an important fac
tor in both LI and L2reading,althoughmaking a bigger contribution to reading at higherlevel of language competence.
There seems to be aninteraction betweenreading in LI and read ing in L2. Salataci andAkyel (2002:34) examined reading strategiesused in LI (Turkish) and L2 (English) reading. Theyconcluded thatthe read ing strategy instructioninL2influenced students’ useof reading strate
gies in Turkishand English, implying that the process oftransfer is bi directional.
Linguistic Differences Between Any Two Languages
Linguistic differences between learners’ LI and L2/FL influenceword recognition, fluency andreading comprehension. Forexample,because ofLI orthographyreadersof Chinese and Japanese make greater use of word processing than doreaders of English. The Orthographic Depth Hy pothesis, discussed by Koda (1999:52-3), proposes that word processing while reading dependsonletter-sound relationships.Phonologically reg
ularlanguages,e.g.Polish, are processedina different waythan phono
logically irregular languages, e.g. English. It is assumed that in L2/FL reading studentswilltend to use some LI processing at least at the be
ginning of theirlearning. Thus Polish learnerswhile reading English will approach words in theway they process words intheir native language.
Similarly,syntacticanddiscourse differences mayaffect word recog nition. Bernhardt (qtd. in Grabe 1991:388) found out that German read
ers seem to focus more attention on function words than do English readers; while Englishreaders appearto focus more on contentwords.
L2 Competence
L2 proficiencyplaysa considerable role in L2/FL reading. TheLinguistic Threshold Hypothesis claims thatinorder to read in aFL/L2,a learner must reach a certain level of target languagelinguisticability. The results ofreading studies indicate that there is an interdependencebetween L2 language proficiency and L2 readingabilities,e.g. Devine (1993:263),Ku- siak (2000: 254).
The Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis also concerns the question whether limited proficiency inan L2/FL restrictsreaders in using very specific types of textual information, such asdiscourse constraints of a text. Cziko’s studies (qtd. in Hudson 1993: 183-4) indicated that the reading performance of the advanced English proficiency French stu
dents resembled thatof nativeEnglish speakers;they were moresensi tive to syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints in a text, and ap plied more nontextualinformation. Low language proficiency readers,
on the other hand, based theirreading onbottom-upstrategies, e.g. sen sitivity to graphic information of a text.Onthebasis of these results Cziko suggested that L2reader strategiesare related to the level of L2compe tence.
Alderson (1984: 20) suggested the modification of the Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis. Heassumed thatinefficient L2/FLreading is due to LI reading strategiesnot being activated in L2/FL reading because of poor L2/FL knowledge. The study ofClarke (1993: 119) indicated that thereis some transferof skills butthe language ofthe text "short circuits” the good reading ability, revertingthe readerto poor reading strategies.
Researchers haveattempted to answerthe question:What isthe lin
guisticthreshold? Cummins (qtd. in Devine 1993: 266-7) claimsthatthe threshold cannot be defined in absoluteterms. Itwill dependonthe kind of areading task and the reader’s level ofavailable and relevant back ground knowledge. Laufer and Sim (1985:409)attempted to express the qualitiesofthe linguistic thresholdin a numerical manner. Intheir study they used the reading section ofthe CambridgeFirst Certificate of En
glishand their ownreading strategy examination.They concluded that the linguisticthreshold necessary to readEnglish for AcademicPurposes successfully corresponds to 65%-70% score on the Cambridge FCE test.
The L2 threshold was characterised by the researchers as knowledgeof vocabulary, subject matter, discourse markers, andsyntacticstructure, indecreasing order of importance.
L1 Reading
The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesisstates that L2 reading de
pends upon the reading abilities in one’s LI rather than upon the learner’s level ofL2 competence. Coady (1979: 12) assertsthat foreign language reading is a readingproblem, not a languageproblem. There
fore,difficulties in L2 readingwould be due tolack of the “old" LI reading skills or failure in transferring LI reading skillsinto L2 reading.
Cowan (qtd. in Alderson 1984: 9-10) posited a parallel process ing theoryof reading, which claims that the strategies readers useare language-specific. Reading difficulties in a FL result from the reader’s predictions about syntacticclueswhich are related to the strategies used
in reading inanative language. Cowan gives an example of English read
ers reading German, who being used to subject-verb-object orderwill be confused by German sentences with object-verb-subject order. Alderson (1984: 11)concludes that the "corollaryoftheparallelprocessingtheory is that theknowledgeof the foreign language will affect thedevelopment ofthe foreign languagestrategies: the less ofthe foreign languageyou know, themore likely youareto read as in your first language.”
Grabe andStoller (2002: 56) considerthelevel ofLIreading abilities crucial. Theyclaim that “students who are weak in LI literacy abilities cannotbeexpected to transfermany supporting resources to L2 read
ingcontexts. The types of abilities that students usein their LI reading representtheupper limit of what canbeexpected for linguistic transfer, strategic practices, problem-solving experiences, task completion skills and metacognitiveawareness of reading processes.”
Consolidating the Linguistic Threshold and the Linguistic Interdependence Hypotheses
Bernhardtand Kamil (1995: 31-2) reviewed thestudiesinvestigatingthe contribution of LI readingand L2 proficiency to L2 reading, and noticed considerableconsistency in the amount of variance accounted for by LI reading(from 20 percent upwards) and L2 proficiency (from 30per cent upwards), with L2 proficiency consistently amorepowerfulpredic tor. They pointed outthat most studies leave 50% ofthevariance in L2 reading ability unexplained.
Reading studies conducted at theend ofthe 20th century indicate that bothfirstlanguage reading abilityand second language proficiency have significant effects on second languagereading ability: e.g. Carrell (1991: 159), Bossers (qtd. in Alderson2001: 39). An interestingconnec tion between the level of L2knowledge and L2 readingwas observed by Bossers, who found out that L2 knowledge (especially vocabulary knowl edge)wasstrongly related to L2 readingcomprehension at lower level of L2 proficiency,whereas only“at a relatively advanced levels of L2 pro
ficiency didfirst-language readingability proveto be the sole predic torof second-language reading" (qtd. in Alderson: 2001: 39). Similarly,
Block(1986:336) observed thatproficient L2 readers performedsimilarly to proficient LI readers; less proficient L2 readers performed similarly to less proficient LI readers. She concluded that "strategic resources, thus, seemmore importantthan specific linguistic knowledgefor these readers.”
Socio-Cultural Differences
L2 readers may hold different assumptions about how to use text re sources. As Grabe and Stoller (2002:60) say, "In each setting, individu als are socializedin theirLI educationto engagewith texts in specified ways.” McCormick (1997: 14), advocating the social-cultural model of reading, recommends treating readers as active producersof meaning, within specific cultural constrains. The researcher described a student whowas not able toquestion her readingprocessandthe text shewas reading;she talked as iftexts and her process of readingwere "straight forward, objective and naturally correct” (McCormick 1997: 109). Mc Cormick claimed that the student’s understanding of textsand reading wasconditioned by thewaythe studenthad been trained.
Teaching Contexts
The exampleof the student unable to question texts and her reading bringsup the last factor in this discussion: expectations of LI and L2 educational institutions. L2 students’ assumptions and behaviours are shapedbyboth their LI and L2institutional experiences. Theseinclude a variety of teachingfactors, such as teacherbehaviour,curricula,class testandnationalexam requirements.Recently in the USA a lotof atten
tion is given to teaching reading in English to bilingualstudents who are stillinthe processofdeveloping Englishlanguageproficiency(e.g. Cum
mins2001).Educators areencouragedto develop in theirbilingual stu
dents’ critical language awareness of both firstand secondlanguagesand by all means toavoidtreatingstudents’LI abilities as an impediment to learningacademic English. Similarly, inthecontext ofteaching reading
in a foreignlanguagemore focus is put on raisinglearners’ metalinguis
tic knowledgeof both LI anda FL and drawing onthisknowledge while developing competencein bothlanguages.
Future Research in the Polish Context
Comparingreading inPolish andreadinginEnglish asaforeign language seems a challenging task. Researchmightinvolve exploring readers’ per
ceptions of reading in LI anda FL, comparingthe two perceptionsand the way they interact and influence each other. It would be useful to investigate how LI and FL educational institutions influence learners’ rolein reading,e.g. comparing how reading abilities to interpret Polish texts are developed during secondary schooleducationandhow reading skills aretaughtduringEFLclasses. Educational researchers may exam
ine awashback effect of nationalexams, e.g. the final secondary school exam, on teaching LI andFLreadingand students’ perceptions of read
ing in the two languages. Both teachers and researchers couldbenefit from investigating a possibility of transferof reading strategies between thetwolanguages.They could alsocompare readers’metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness ofPolish with those of a FL and investigate how this awareness influences LI and FL reading.
Investigating how a reader’s first language and culture influence his/her readingin a foreign language will enrich ourunderstanding of thecomplex natureof readingandraiseteacher awareness ofa variety of factors that can make pedagogic practices more effective.
REFERENCES
Alderson, Charles. 1984. “Reading in a Foreign Language: A Reading Problem or a Language Problem?” Reading in a Foreign Language. Ed. Charles Alderson and A.H. Urquhart. London: Longman.
Alderson, Charles. 2001. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge UP
Bernhardt, Elizabeth, and Michael Kamil. 1995. “Interpreting Relationships be
tween LI and L2 Readers: Consolidating the Linguistic Threshold and the Linguistic Interdependence Hypotheses.” Applied Linguistics 16.1: 15-34.
Block, Ellen. 1986. "The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers.”
TESOL Quarterly 20.3: 463-94.
Carrell, Patricia. 1985. “Facilitating ESL Reading by Teaching Text Structure.”
TESOL Quarterly 19.4: 727-52.
Carrell, Patricia. 1991. “Second Language Reading: Reading Ability or Language Proficiency?" Applied Linguistics 12.2: 159-79.
Clarke, Mark. 1993. "The Short Circuit Hypothesis of ESL Reading - or When Lan
guage Competence Interferes with Reading Performance.” Interactive Ap
proaches to Second Language Reading. Ed. Patricia Carrell, Joanne Devine, and David Eskey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Coady, James. 1979. "A Psycholinguistic Model of the ESL Reader.” Reading in a Second Language. Ed. Ronald Mackay, Bruce Barhman, and R.R. Jordan.
Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Cummins, Jim. 2001. Interview. California Reader (Spring). 27 January 2005
<http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/calreadinterview01.htm>.
Devine, Joanne. 1993. "The Relationship between General Language Compe
tence and Second Language Reading Proficiency: Implications for Teach
ing.” Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Ed. Patricia Car
rell, Joanne Devine, and David Eskey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP
Grabe, William. 1991. "Current Developments in Second Reading Research.”
TESOL Quarterly 25.3: 375-406.
Grabe, Wiliam, and Fredrica Stoller. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading.
London: Pearson Education.
Hudson, Thom. 1993. "The Effects of Induced Schemata on the ‘Short Circuit’ in L2 Reading: Non-Decoding Factors in L2 Reading Performance.” Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Ed. Patricia Carrell, Joanne Devine, and David Eskey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Kaplan, Robert. 1997. "Contrastive Rhetoric.” Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications. Ed. Tom Miller. Washington: English Language Programs United States Information Agency.
Koda, Keiko. 1999. "Development of L2 Intraword Orthographic Sensitivity and Decoding Skills.” Modern Language Journal 83: 51-64.
Kusiak, Monika. 2000. "The Effect of Metacognitive Strategy Training on Read
ing Comprehension and Metacognitive Knowledge.” Diss. Jagiellonian U, Kraków.
Laufer, Batia, and Donald D. Sim. 1985. "Measuring and Explaining the Reading Threshold Needed for English for Academic Purposes Texts.” Foreign Lan
guage Annals 18: 405-11.
McCormick, Kathleen. 1997. The Culture of Reading and the Teaching of English.
Manchester: Manchester UP.
Muljani, Dojomiharudojo, Keiko Koda, and Danny Moates. 1998. "The Develop
ment of Word Recognition in a Second Language.” Applied Psycholinguistics 19: 99-113.
Pearson, David, and Linda Fielding. 1991. "Comprehension Instruction." Hand
book of Reading Research. Vol. II. Ed. Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and David Pearson. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Salatci, Reyhan, and Ayse Akyel. 2002. "Possible Effects of Strategy Instruction on LI and L2 Reading.” Reading in a Foreign Language 14.1: 40 pars. 3 March 2005 <http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/ApriI2002/salatci/salatci.html>.
Schoonen, Rob, Jan Hulstijn, and Bart Bossers. 1998. "Metacognitive and Language-Specific Knowledge in Native and Foreign Language Reading Comprehension: An Empirical Study Among Dutch Students in Grades 6, 8 and 10.” Language Learning 48.1: 71-106.
