Does learning a second language help you become a better reader in your first language? I did some research to answer that!
The effects of learning a second language on native language’s reading comprehension- A systematic review from a cognitive science perspective. (manuscript)
Barbara Echard M.Ed.
sept, 2024
Universidad de Chile
In learning a second language, the effects of the native language on the target have been profusely studied from a cognitive perspective, for example, on the form of cross-linguistic transfer with varying views regarding its negative or positive influence. However, the direction of this transfer has been traditionally studied taking the native language as the origin, and little is known about any effects that studying a second language can have on the linguistic skills a learner has on the first language, especially in adults and late bilinguals. This systematic review seeks to answer if such backward interaction and a specific effect on reading comprehension exists in adults. By using PRISMA methodology, reviewed studies show that the study of this transfer has mostly been addressed from applied linguistics and neuroscience, all in all confirming a backward interaction between languages. Models of bilingual representation are detailed and discussed as a main finding.
Keywords: language transfer, bilingualism, late bilingualism, reading comprehension, second language acquisition.
Cross language transfer has been traditionally defined as the effects or the influence of one language over another in the process of learning either two languages simultaneously or a second language in life (Odlin, 1989; Ortega, 2009). So far, we know that an L1 can have a positive or interference effect in the process of learning a second language, such as the one described by the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis CAH (Lado, 1957), although this has been mostly researched with emphasis in learner’s errors. However, this relationship can also be beneficial, as claimed by Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis LIH (Cummings, 1979) where languages interact in a way that a learner’s native language can serve as a basis for academic cognitive skills in the process of learning a target language, or as shown by neuroscience where a learning to read in a second language can rely on the neural structures already set by the native language (Fakhraee Faruji, , 2011).
Currently, information about this cross-linguistic transfer process has been studied mainly in the same direction, from the native language (L1) to the target language a person is learning or has learned (L2); however, evidence regarding the same transfer in the opposite direction, from L2 to an L1 seems scarce, although studies more than fifteen years ago as in Cook (2003, 2005) already recognized and present evidence of this reverse influence.
Consequently, the present paper consists of a systematic review aimed at exploring the effects that learning a second language can have in one’s native language, specifically in the construct of reading comprehension, once literacy processes in the native language have already settled.
What is the effect that learning a second language has on reading comprehension skills in the native language of adults?
- To explore current research on L2->L1 transfer on reading comprehension from an empirical approach.
- To identify where these studies have been conducted.
- To understand how this transfer has been studied and which variables have been considered.
- To identify the aspects of reading comprehension that are affected by this L2-L1 transfer, if any.
In order to answer the research question and achieve the objectives, I conducted a systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA approach (McKenzie, 2021) following three stages of Identification, Screening, and Inclusion. In the identification stage I searched two different databases: ISI- WOS, Scopus using different combinations of the keywords “Second Language Instruction” and “First language Reading Comprehension”. Additionally, a search with versions of the word “language transfer” or “linguistic transfer” was also included. See Appendix A for a detailed description of the strings used in each search.
4.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion criteria were applied in two stages of the PRISMA approach. In the identification stage, automated tools were used on each of the DDBB websites. The criteria applied to include studies in the stage considered the type of publication, field of knowledge, language, and date. On the screening stage of the PRISMA process, new inclusion criteria were applied related to the quality of journals, the type of study, and the direction of transfer.
Criteria | Inclusion | Exclusion |
Type of publication | journal published articles | Books - unpublished articles |
Categories | linguistics, education, educational research, language linguistics, neuroscience. | Speech or neurological disorders |
Language | Spanish, English | Other languages |
Date | 2000 onwards (XXI century) | older |
Journal quality | q1 and q2 | q3, q4 or not qualified by Scimago |
Type of study | empirical | reviews and theoretical studies |
Direction of transfer | L2->L1 | L1->L2 |
Participants | Adults | Children or teenagers |
Table 1: Summary of criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of articles.
After applying automated queries to databases ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS, I obtained 833 citations which after removing duplicates and filtering by journal quality criteria, resulted in 533 citations to be screened. Subsequently, only articles in which the direction of the transfer between languages was from the second language to the first or native language were considered for the following step. In attention to the previously mentioned research question and objectives, only those articles that dealt with adults from an empirical perspective were included in this review.
4.2 Summary of PRISMA
Table 2: Process of article selection using PRISMA method.
Authors | Year | Research design | Location of study | Variables considered | Instruments | L2 --> L1 effect | Reading comprehension Aspects affected | Model authors claim their evidence supports |
Kroll J.F., Michael E., Tokowicz N., Dufour R. | 2002 | Experimental design | USA | Reaction time, Accuracy in reading & translating, Accuracy in lexical judgements. | Lexical judgment task, forward and backward translation task, word naming task, Reading span task (Waters & Coplan, 1996), language history questionnaire. | Fluent (more proficient) bilinguals read L2 and L1 words faster and more accurately. They also translate faster and more accurately and perform better in lexical judgment tasks than less fluent bilinguals (people who are just learning the L2) | Vocabulary, translation, lexical judgment | Partially to the revised Hierarchical model and the BIA model. |
Lazarte A.A., Barry S. | 2008 |
| USA, Perú | Reading time (within clause and at end of clause); level of lexical complexity, text type (narrative vs descriptive), and type of clause. | E- Prime for reading times (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002) | Bilinguals with high exposure to L2 use more and better strategies when reading clauses in their L1. | Reading strategies transfer from an L2 to an L1 as a function of academic exposure to that target L2 | not present |
Nosarti, C; Mechelli, A; Green, DW; Price, CJ | 2010 | Experimental design | UK | word type vs. Brain region activation | fMRI, Event-Related approach, Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale | L1 neural network restructures to accommodate inconsistent spelling-to-sound words from the L2. | Neural network | BIA+ |
Kaushanskaya M., Yoo J., Marian V. | 2011 | quasi -experimental | USA | Second language experience, age of acquisition, type of immersion, self-reported proficiency level in the L2, L1 reading fluency, L1 vocabulary, | Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire LEAP-Q (Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007); • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) • Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT; William, 1997) Para medir la fluidez lectora en la L1 se usó el test: • Reading Fluency sub-test of the Woodcock Johnson III - Tests of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) | Negative effect of younger time of acquisition and L1 reading comprehension in English-Spanish speakers. Positive effect of younger time of acquisition and L1 reading comprehension in Chinese speakers. | Vocabulary |
|
Titone D., Libben M., Mercier J., Whitford V., Pivneva I. | 2011 | Experimental design | Canada | Second language history; reading proficiency, | Questionnaire LEAP-Q (Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007). Eye Tracking to measure reading comprehension. | Reading in their L1 activates L2 representations. Early bilinguals read cognates more easily when reading in their L1. | Vocabulary reading: cognate facilitation, interlingual homographs interference. | BIA+ |
Mei L., Xue G., Lu Z.-L., Chen C., Zhang M., He Q., Wei M., Dong Q. | 2014 | Experimental design | China | type of training (semantic or phonological) versus areas of the brain activation, picture and word naming. | fMRI passive viewing for reading | Learning words in a new language does shape the areas of the brain used in the L1. The brain uses less resources to read in the L1 and an already acquired L2 after being trained semantically in a new language. Proficiency level in the new language acts as modulatory variable, | Neural network | Partial integration hypothesis (Kroll, et al. 1994) |
Timmer, K; Ganushchak, LY; Ceusters, I; Schiller, NO | 2014 | experiment | The Netherlands | English proficiency L2 | EEG lexical decision task Meara (2005) | L2 phonology activates when reading in the L1 | vocabulary
| BIA+ |
Lemhöfer K., Huestegge L., Mulder K. | 2018 | Experimental design | The Netherlands and Germany | language background, Dutch vocabulary knowledge, word recognition (2 conditions: nonword and word type), eye movement | language background, LexTALE lexical decision task, questionnaire, eye movement tracker, | L2 is activated during word recognition tasks for cognate and near cognate conditions even when reading them at sentence level. | Vocabulary reading: cognate facilitation, | BIA+ |
Movahedi M., Talebi S.H. | 2020 | quasi -experimental | Iran | reading strategy instruction in L2, reading ability IN L1 and L2, and reading attitude | Reading test in L2 English, Reading test in L1 Persian (both tests created by the authors), Questionnaire of Attitude towards reading (Yamashita, 2007) in their original language English and also translated into Persian | Reading Strategies Instruction in the L2 resulted in significant improvement in reading comprehension in the L1. It also showed an improvement in reading attitude towards the L1 but greater towards the L2. | Reading comprehension strategies and reading attitude. | Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummings, 1979) |
TABLE 3: Summary of reviewed articles
In regard to the original research question of this Systematic review, all studies recognize, in fact, an effect of the second language, or the experience of having learned a second language, on the reading comprehension of the first language. However, these effects are described as increased skill or as an adjustment or change in the neural network of the bilingual person; that is to say, the way different aspects of the linguistic competence are affected by the new language or how different brain functions are shaped by it.
5.2.1 Objective 1: what current research on L2->L1 transfer on reading comprehension from an empirical approach tells us.
In general, studies elicited by this review can be divided into two main categories regarding the area of knowledge from which they were carried out. On the one hand, there are studies that approach the phenomenon from a psychological perspective or psycholinguistic perspective, with attention on the competences and experiences of bilinguals; and on the other hand, a more neuroscience approach with attention on the cognitive and physiological processes of the bilingual brain.
Findings from the psycholinguistics front that recognize positive effects of the L2 on an L1 in the skill of reading include Movahedi and Talebi’s (2020) Master’s thesis which measured the effect that Reading Strategy Instruction in the second language had on the reading ability and attitude towards reading in the first language of Persian speaking university students. They found that reading comprehension ability in the first language improved significantly after eight sessions of instruction in the second language English; and the attitude toward reading also saw a gain in the first language. Another example is Lazarte & Barry’s work (2008) which by comparing groups of English-Spanish and Spanish-English bilinguals across text types and complexities found that high exposure to the L2 resulted in transfer of L2-specific reading strategies to their L1. A final example is the most frequently cited work of Judith Kroll and colleagues (2002) who found that more proficient bilingual speakers perform significantly faster and more accurately than less proficient bilinguals, and by inference, monolinguals, in tasks related to word naming, lexical judgment, translation, and reading span across languages. A third example comes from a quasi-experimental study by Kaushanskaya et al. (2011) that found that there are interactions between and L2 and an L1 in the bilingual mind, but that the positive effect will depend on factors such as age of acquisition and nature of the languages involved. Similar to this, it was found that that when reading in their first language, bilinguals show semantic activation of their L2 as well, which helps them read cognates more easily, for example (Titone et al., 2011; Lemhöfer, 2018); however, this effect is modulated by the age of L2 acquisition, in a way that bilinguals who learned their L2 at a younger age showed even more facilitation (Titone et al., 2011). All this evidence for psycholinguistics shows that the experience of learning a second language does have a mostly positive effect on a person’s reading comprehension skills.
In the case of studies carried out from a perspective in neuroscience, findings point to a reorganization of neural networks in the brain of bilingual adults that are shared in the process of reading comprehension, which is, in turn modulated by the nature of the language and the level of proficiency that a bilingual person has in their L2. This in general means that bilingual readers reallocate resources to tackle second language reading and this new pattern is used when reading back in the first language. In their 2010 study using fMRI techniques, Nosarti found that more participants who were more proficient in the L2 showed more activation in the left pars orbitalis when reading in the L1, than less proficient bilinguals, it also showed that when the second language shares the alphabetic system, L1 reading involves more lexical/semantic processing, showed in increased activation of the left dorsal premotor cortex, usually involved in non-lexical spelling-to-sound processing. This means that when we have learned an L2, reading becomes more demanding from phonological access, because the brain now knows more spelling-to-sound combinations. This increased demand will result in L1 reading being more dependent on lexical access for bilinguals in contrast to monolinguals. Consistent with these results, Timmer et al. (2014) used EEG to measure reaction time and region of the brain activation in Dutch-English bilinguals. They found that participants read aloud L1 target words faster when primed by phonological matching L2 words, therefore concluding that L1 and L2 Grapheme to Phoneme correspondences (GPC) are active simultaneously in bilinguals, which they considered provided support for a model of language representation that conceives that an L1 and L2 make one system. Finally, Mei et al. (2014) set out to measure how the neural representations of a language change after learning a new language. They used fMRI to measure reaction time and brain region activation of Chinese-English bilinguals while performing different language tasks in an Artificial language after training. Their results show that participants became faster for reading task in their L1 after training in learning the artificial language, implying that influence from a new language to existing L1 or L2 happen at the semantic level and is modulated by the level of proficiency reached in this new language, i.e. the more proficient in the new language a bilingual becomes, the more effect it will have in those previously learned languages including their native or first language. Research from neuroscience, then, shows that the bilingual brain goes through changes in order to accommodate the expanded lexis and increased cognitive demands that learning a second language entails, but this very process also results in advantages for their overall reading skills in their first language.
In summary, the effect of learning a second language in the reading comprehension abilities of the first language does exist and it is generally positive, but it is also modulated by variables such as the nature of the language learned, i.e. whether they share same or similar alphabet (Nosarti et al., 2010, Kaushanskaya et al., 2011) and the level of proficiency attained (Kroll, et al., 2020; Mei, et al., 2014, Nosarti et al., 2010) where with increased proficiency in the L2, ability for reading in the L1 increase and demand on neural resources decrease accordingly.
5.2.2 Objective 2: Places where the studies have been conducted
Most studies have been carried out in universities with university students, and mostly in countries in which English is the first and official language with massive immigration, e.g USA, The United Kingdom, or Canada; or in countries where English is spoken and taught as a second language in academic and professional settings such as in The Netherlands, Germany, China, and Iran.
5.2.3 Objective 3: Understand how this transfer has been studied and which variables have been considered.
We can recognize that there are two main approaches to understanding the effect of an L2 on an L1 and they are based primarily on psycholinguistics and neuroscience correspondingly. And their research designs and variables, although similar, are measured with different kinds of instruments. Most of the studies in the review were set using an experimental design in a laboratory setting, whereas a few were quasi-experimental studies conducted in university level cohorts of second language learners. The variables considered in the psycholinguistic branch are mostly psychometric and include reading comprehension at the textual level (Movahedi and Telebi, 2020), vocabulary (Kaushanskaya et al., 2011; Kroll, 2002) using instruments such as tests to measure reading the comprehension aspects and questionnaires to measure overall second language acquisition experience that included self-perceived proficiency, age of acquisition and time of exposure to the L2 (Kaushanskaya et al., 2011; Kroll, 2002) and even attitude towards reading as an affective variable (Movahedi and Telebi, 2020).
From the neuroscience perspective, reading comprehension is frequently measured as an isolated aspect of lexical knowledge, such as word meaning or word form in terms of orthography and phonology and the dependent variables include reaction time to reading stimuli (RT) and activation of key places of the brain Regions of interest, or ROI. However, a few of them also measure aspects such as self-reported proficiency level in the second language (Timmer et al., 2014; Norsarti et al., 2010).
All the reviewed studies used experiments as their main research design, which probably respond to the criteria of empirical in this search. In most cases, experimental designs were performed, where participants were recruited, but in a few studies, a quasi experimental design responded better to a context where available participants were already grouped.
Regarding instruments, reading comprehension measures were done mostly at the lexical level and included tests previously constructed by other authors such as the Meara lexical decision task, or Mill Hill Vocabulary test, and in one case, a reading test had to be created to test Persian as an L1, given that there are no standardized test for that language (Movahedi and Talebi, 2020). A special way to also measure reading comprehension was by using eye fixation as a measure of depth of reading as in the studies of Titone et al. (2011) and Lemhöfer (2018). Short fixation is generally related to form processing, whereas longer fixation indicates lexical processing. In order to measure self-reported proficiency level and overall language learning history, the most popular test that emerged in the review was the el Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire LEAP-Q (Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007), finally, the only affective variable measured in the studies included in this review was Yamashita’s (2005) 5-point Likert scale to measure attitude toward reading.
Neuroscience-related studies prefer the use of fMRI or EEG to map the areas of the brain where languages could be represented and how their activation differs from one language to the other; they also measure reaction times (RT) for each of the tasks, usually simultaneously to the imaging measures.
Regarding data analysis, the studies reviewed use a quantitative approach to the designs to collect data and to analyze them. Most methods to determine the effect of a variable over another by performing analysis of variance (ANOVA), or covariance ANCOVA. All studies reliably reported the required statistical parameters, such as p values, for the reader to be able to evaluate effect size or statistical significance on their own.
5.2.4 Objective 4: Identify the aspects of reading comprehension that are affected by this L2-L1 transfer, if any.
In synchrony with the unit of analysis mostly used in the studies reviewed, it is clear that the effect of the L2 on L1 reading comprehension has been so far seen in vocabulary. Most gains are reported in how accurately or how fast bilinguals process word orthography, phonology and semantics. However, only a few studies briefly report on gains on different aspects such as attention and memory span (Kroll et al., 2002) and reading comprehension strategies (Movahedi and Talebi, 2020). Other aspects such as syntactic processing or more interpretative and critical reading comprehension abilities, although mentioned in literature reviews, are not measured in the studies included in this review.
5.2.5 Representation of languages in the brain
In relation to the theories used as base, we can see there is a debate in the neuroscience of language processing related to whether bilingual brains hold their language systems represented as an integrated system or two different ones that must switch in linguistic tasks. The most frequently mentioned hypotheses are the Simple Naming Model (Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999) where two or more languages are represented separately in the bilingual brain and there is no competition; another model is the Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA+) (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002) that claims that languages do interact with each other via competition in lexical aspects; a third view suggest that languages in a bilingual brain make one single lexicon system with shared semantics (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002). Some evidence support that they are simultaneously activated in phonological tasks (Timmer, et al., 2014) and that they share one semantic system (Mei et al., 2014).
After performing a systematic review on the empirical research conducted on the XXIst century on topic of reverse linguistic transfer in and its effect on reading comprehension on bilingual adults, it is clear that there is an effect, the effect is mostly positive and it seems to be modulated by other factors such as language nature and level of proficiency. Nevertheless, a chronological examination of the studies reveal a shift in focus and approaches of the studies and a few limitations that need to be addressed in future research.
Regarding the shift of focus in time, we see that at the beginning of the century, questions still focused on the cognitive advantages that bilingualism could bring but shifted towards inquiry into the way languages are represented in the bilingual brain. This is probably a consequence of the expanded access to technological tools for measuring brain activity, such as EEG and fMRI.
6.1. Limitations of the studies: Operationalization of Reading Comprehension
It is worth noting that the operationalization of reading in all these studies is rather focused at word level, and sometimes isolating certain aspects of a word, such as orthography and phonology (Timmer et al., 2014). Few studies use more complex aspects of reading comprehension, such as understanding texts at the sentence level (Titone et al., 2011; Lemhöfer, 2018) or including the interpreting or critical level as in Movahedi and Talebi (2020) or Lazarte and Barry’ study (2008). This may be due to the need to isolate and control variables to minimize the presence of undetected confounding variables and hence ensure reliability. Therefore, tapping on to those unaddressed aspects that include reading as syntactic, interpretive and critical processing should be the next step in research in order to contribute to the field.
6.2 Age of Acquisition
Another question raised in a few studies was the role of age of acquisition of the second language (AOA), that is to say, the extent to which having learned the second language as a child or as an adult had any role in the effect of the L2 on the L1 is still under debate. In the study about nonselective access during L1 reading, Titone et al. (2011) showed that AOA had a consistent effect across experiments in enhancing the facilitating effect of the L2 knowledge on L1 reading skills. In contrast, Kaushanskaya et al. (2011) only found this “the younger the better” relationship in English-Mandarin speakers, whereas for English-Spanish speakers, those who learned the L2 later were better L1 readers. Therefore, research in adult bilinguals needs to control for AOA in a more systematic way in order to settle the debate. Nevertheless, research on children so recognizes this effect at a time in which children still have dominance on the L1 while learning an L2 such as the work of Spies et al. (2017) where Spanish-English bilingual children showed better reading comprehension after a three-year English instruction program. However, as children are generally also developing literacy skills in their own first language, it is difficult to isolate effects. The same is true for adults in some of the studies in this review, where attempts to isolate whether the age at which they started learning had any influence in the results of the study was seldom the purpose of the study, with the exception of works mentioned, and reports on age of acquisition served more frequently as a way to estimate proficiency.
The present paper has reported on a systematic review of empirical studies conducted on the topic of the effects that learning a second language has on the reading comprehension skills of adults. Two academic databases were consulted following the PRISMA method, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria in sequential steps, which resulted in a total of 10 studies. Revision of the studies first verifies that research in this topic is still incipient but it is clear in showing that in fact learning a second language does have an effect on the reading comprehension skills of a person’s native language. This effect however, is positive in cases where the native and target languages share an alphabetic nature and the strength of this effect will also be modulated by the level of proficiency a person achieves in the second language.
Analysis of the reviewed papers also show that focus on this topic changed from investigating the cognitive benefits of being bilingual towards understanding the physiology of language representation in the brain of a person who learns a second language. The methods and approaches to measure this effect have, however, consistently preferred experimental designs with variation in instruments, depending on the field of study, e.g. psychometric or standardized tests, versus EEG or fMRI techniques.
Further research needs emerge from certain common limitations that some of these studies report, such as the way the construct of reading comprehension is operationalized and the role of age of acquisition as a possible additional modulator of the effect of a second language in a person’s first language reading comprehension skills.
Cook, V. (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 5, 175–197.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3rd ed.. American Guidance Service.
Fakhraee Faruji, L. (2011). Neurolinguistic Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2(4), 36-41
Kroll, J.F., Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language. 33, 149–174.
Kroll J.F., Michael E., Tokowicz N & Dufour R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18(2), 137-171. 10.1191/0267658302sr201oa
Kroll, J.F., Tokowicz, N., (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: looking back and to the future. In: Kroll, J.F., de Groot, A.M.B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press, pp. 531–553.
Kroll, J.F., Van Hell, J.G., Tokowicz, N., Green, D.W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: a critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 13, 373–381.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan press.
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H.K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 50, 940–967.
Meara, P. (2005). X_Lex: The Swansea vocabulary levels test. v2.05. Lognostics.
Mei L., Xue G., Lu Z.-L., Chen C., Zhang M., He Q., Wei M. & Dong Q. (2014). Learning to read words in a new language shapes the neural organization of the prior languages. Neuropsychologia, 65, 156-168. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.019
McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M, Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Movahedi M. & Talebi S.H. (2020). Are L2 (English) and L1 (Persian) affected similarly in cognitive and affective domains?: Revisiting interdependence hypothesis. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(4), 1266-1283. 10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.4.7.1266
Nosarti, C., Mechelli, A., Green, D. W. & Price, C. J. (2010). The Impact of Second Language Learning on Semantic and Nonsemantic First Language Reading. Cerebral Cortex, 20(2), 315-327. 10.1093/cercor/bhp101
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
Spies, TG; Lara-Alecio, R; Tong, FH ; Irby, BJ; Garza, T; Huerta, M. (2017). The effects of developing English language and literacy on Spanish reading comprehension. Journal of Education Research, 111-2018(5), https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1306686,
Timmer, K., Ganushchak, L. Y., Ceusters, I. & Schiller, N. O. (2014). Second language phonology influences first language word naming. Brain and Language, 133, 14-25. 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.004
Titone D., Libben M., Mercier J., Whitford V. & Pivneva I. (2011). Bilingual Lexical Access During L1 Sentence Reading: The Effects of L2 Knowledge, Semantic Constraint, and L1-L2 Intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 55-77.
Van Heuven, W.J.B., Dijkstra, A. and Grainger, J. 1998: Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 458–83.
William, K.T. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test. American Guidance Service.
Woodcock, RW., McGrew, KS., Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Riverside Publishing.
Yamashita, J. (2007). The relationship of reading attitudes between L1 and L2: An investigation of adult EFL learners in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 81–105. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb000 41.x
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario