FINAL PROJECT—UNDERSTANDING FIRST LANGUAGE ORTHOGRAPHIC IMPACT
ON SECOND LANGUAGE WORD RECOGNITION: LOOKING BACK AND AHEAD
Understanding L1 Orthographic Impact on L2 Word Recognition: Looking Back and Ahead
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary (EDSL-617)
Hsing-fei Huang
Student ID #: 260054036
McGill University
June 27, 2004
L1 Orthographic Impact
2
Introduction
The importance of literacy in a foreign language has long been regarded as a critical
factor in the second language (L2) mastery process. The process of word recognition is
probably the most basic and thus cannot be overemphasized. However, due to the
predominance of top-down approach to L2 reading research in the 1970s and 80s, lower-level
processing has attracted far less attention than it deservers and the role and function of
orthographic knowledge remain largely unexplored. Not until recently have researchers
begun to realize that orthographic knowledge plays an important part in L2 reading,
particularly in lexical processing. Some studies (e.g., Huckin & Bloch, 1993) indicated that
the failure to use context for lexical inference mostly attributes to word misidentification that
usually results from inefficient orthographic processing. Therefore, the learning of word form
is now considered to be a crucial process (i.e., bottom-up processing) and should be mastered
in the first place.
Most people believe that L2 word recognition is facilitated when the L1 orthographic
systems are typologically related to the L2 system. It is thus expected that L2 learners from
unrelated L1 backgrounds will lag behind those with related backgrounds. I wonder how L1
orthography affects L2 word recognition and to what extent L2 learners are able to modify
their L1 orthographic processing skills especially when learning another language with a
different orthographic system. Once L2 learners gain specific level of processing competence,
L1 Orthographic Impact
3
will orthographic distance effects decrease thereafter? To explore these questions, in the next
section, I investigate what influences L2 learners’ word recognition and orthographic impact
on L2 word recognition in particular by interpreting relevant studies. In addition, I also
indicate a few considerations for future research in the third section. Finally, there are some
underlying pedagogical implications presented.
L2 Word Recognition Research
Reading is a complex task. Unlike first language (L1) reading, L2 reading is
cross-linguistic, involving two or more languages. L2 learners need to deal with the change
from one orthographic system to another. To help clarify the specific effects of L1
orthographic knowledge on L2 lexical processing, the present analysis is performed from a
cross-linguistic perspective. Therefore, knowing language transfer is central to the discussion.
Language Transfer
Language transfer is one of the important areas in second language acquisition (SLA)
and this notion was originally derived from Contrastive Analysis (CA) hypothesis in the
1950s. In this behavioristic view, L1 was regarded as interference to L2 acquisition.
Nevertheless, with Chomskyan influence in the late 1960s, L2 learning began to be
considered an active process and L1 was viewed as the crucial basis for learning the new
L1 Orthographic Impact
4
linguistic system. Although the literature on L1 orthographic impact on SLA is limited,
Koda’s (1988, 1990) research is the most recognized effort in this area. Dealing with L1
cognitive transfer, Koda examined L1 orthographic effect in Arabic, Spanish, and Japanese
on L2 English word and even sentence processing, claiming that L1 cognitive processing
strategies are diversely transferred to L2 reading due to the different L1 orthographic
systems.
Different Orthographic Systems
While L2 readers see the word, the compelling question may be ‘What happens after the
word is seen?’ Do they assemble the phonological code (i.e., phonological recoding) or the
whole word (i.e., visual processing) as their lexical access? Before exploring the relationship
between orthographic systems and word recognition, we need to know different orthographic
systems. Orthographic systems vary on two dimensions—representational units and
orthographic depth. Representational units refer to the linguistic unit each graphemic symbol
represents, such as a morpheme in logography, a syllable in syllabary and a phoneme in
alphabet (Koda, 1988). Given varying representational units in different orthographic systems
(i.e., logographic, syllabic and alphabetic systems), Koda (1988) assumed that cognitive
processing underlying word recognition should differ from one orthography to another.
Orthographic depth refers to the degree of regularity in sound-symbol correspondence.
L1 Orthographic Impact
5
The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH) has been proposed to explain the relationship
between the script of a language and its phonology (Frost, Katz, & Bentin, 1987). According
to the ODH, orthographic scripts exist on a continuum, which has the labels ‘shallow’ and
‘deep’ at its two extremes. ‘Shallow’ orthographies, such as Spanish and Serbo-Croatian,
show relatively consistent sound-spelling correspondence, whereas ‘deep’ orthographies,
such as Chinese and Hebrew, possess more inconsistent and opaque sound-spelling
correspondence characteristics. Frost et al. (1987) concluded that the more shallow
orthographies are, the more phonological coding is involved. Moreover, other cross-linguistic
studies between relatively shallow and deep orthographies, such as English versus Chinese
(Perfetti & Zhang, 1991), offered evidence of orthographic impact on word recognition
across languages.
Word Recognition Process in Different Orthographic Systems
Transferability of L1 orthographic strategy to L2 word recognition.
Among L2 word recognition studies, the transfer of L1 orthographic strategy to L2
received relatively more attention. To test participants’ reliance on a visual strategy versus a
phonological recoding strategy, researchers manipulated the variables in tasks such as lexical
decision. There are mainly three types of variable manipulation in current studies—
grapheme-phoneme regularity, intraword sensitivity and visual interference.
L1 Orthographic Impact
6
The first type of variable manipulation involved testing for grapheme-phoneme
regularity. Koda (1988) tested readers from four contrasting L1 orthographic
backgrounds—Spanish, Arabic, English and Japanese. Spanish and Arabic are languages
considered orthographically shallow as compared to English while Japanese is considered
orthographically deep. In her orthographic acceptability judgment task, which required
employing grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules, the Japanese group showed the greatest
increase in reaction times. Koda (1988) thus concluded that Japanese readers were unable to
use their L1 dominant visual processing strategy to assist in the task since the task depended
largely on the ability to apply grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules. Wang, Koda and
Perfetti (2003) examined the application of grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules by their
L1 Korean and Chinese participants. Their results showed that Chinese readers were more
affected by spelling similarity than Korean readers, which suggests Chinese readers’ reliance
on a visual-whole-word strategy may lead them to pay less attention to smaller visual
differences.
The second type of variable manipulation involved testing for intraword sensitivity.
Intraword sensitivity refers to L2 readers’ sensitivity to the frequency of letter
positions/combinations in L2 (Koda, 1999). Koda (1999) found her Korean participants are
more sensitive to English orthographic constraints than the Chinese participants. That is, L1
alphabetic background (i.e., Korean) does promote L2 intraword structural sensitivity.
L1 Orthographic Impact
7
Muljani, Koda and Moates (1998) also found intraword analysis transfer effects for learners
with L1 Indonesian and Chinese. They manipulated word frequency and letter combination
congruency to create four sets of stimuli and found that the Indonesian group transferred their
L1 intraword structural knowledge to L2 English. This intraword structural knowledge was,
however, not available to the Chinese group, for it is not a required processing in their L1
orthography. Moreover, Wade-Wolley (1999) found the evidence for L1 strategy transfer
despite her results was opposite to those mentioned above. In her orthographic acceptability
judgment task, since Russian is an alphabetic script with similar orthographic depth to
English, the Russian group was expected to be more sensitive to intraword structure and to
have faster reaction times than the Japanese group. Nonetheless, in fact it was not the case.
She interpreted the results by claiming that learning Kanji (i.e., Japanese logography)
requires greater attention to visual detail and such strategy was transferred to L2 in this task.
The third type of variable manipulation involved the use of visually distorted words.
Akamatsu (1999, 2003) utilized visual distortion of word shape (e.g., cAsE aLtErNaTiOn) to
test word recognition of L1 Chinese, Japanese, Persian and English participants in naming
tasks. He hypothesized that if one is sensitive to alphabetic orthography, the visual distortion
of word-shape cues should not affect one’s sensitivity to sequences of letters in words. The
results showed that native English speakers were not affected by case alternation and that
readers with a non-alphabetic L1 background (i.e., the Chinese and Japanese) were more
L1 Orthographic Impact
8
adversely affected by case alternation than were the L1 Persian readers. Thus, Akamatsu
(2003) concluded that since Chinese and Japanese do not share the same orthographic
characteristics as English, the Chinese and Japanese speakers were less efficient in processing
letters of words than the Persian speakers, whose L1 shares alphabetic orthographic features
with English. Moreover, Jackson et al. (1999) also used mixed case stimuli in a timed reading
task performed by the Korean, Hong Kong and Taiwanese groups. The Hong Kong group
learned their L1 (i.e., Cantonese) directly with characters whereas the Taiwanese group
learned their L1 (i.e., Mandarin) by using Zhuyin Fuhao (a quasi-alphabetic approach).
Jackson et al. (1999) found that the Hong Kong group was less affected by case alternation
than the other groups because they had more exposure to printed L2 (i.e., English). Contrary
to previous findings, no effect could be attributed to their L1 orthography or early exposure to
alphabetic transliteration of Chinese characters, which differentiated the Hong Kong and
Taiwanese groups. The result suggested that the transfer of L1 orthographic strategy is not as
important as exposure to L2.
Furthermore, rather than in L2 English, Chikamatsu (1996) employed visual interference
in Japanese on a lexical decision task to compare reaction times of American and Chinese
JFL (Japanese as foreign language) learners. Although there is no upper-lower case
distinction in Japanese, Chikamatsu used Kana, a syllabic script in Japanese. Kana is divided
into two systems, hiragana and katakana, which share the same syllabic sound representation
L1 Orthographic Impact
9
and can be transcribed by each other. The results showed that the Chinese group depended
more on visual information in words while the English group depended more on phonological
information in words. Chikamatsu concluded that each language group showed different
word recognition strategies in L2 Japanese word recognition, reflecting each group’s L1
orthography and that L1 word recognition strategies are indeed transferred into L2 word
recognition. Clearly, the majority of research involving the manipulation of orthographic
variables suggested that L2 readers’ dominant L1 word-processing strategies are transferred
to L2 reading and that the L1 orthographic structures has a major impact on the kind of
cognitive processes that are transferred to L2 reading.
L2 orthographic processing experience.
Some experiments previously mentioned (e.g., Muljani et al., 1998; Akamatsu, 1999)
also included word frequency in L2 as a variable and found that it is a major factor in L2
word recognition. That is, as in L1, the connection between an L2 printed word and its lexical
entry becomes stronger through repetition. This is true even when L1 and L2 are
orthographically different. Jackson et al. (1999) hypothesized that the superior performance
of the Hong Kong group was due to more L2 exposure and greater L2 print experience in
their society. Though the transfer of L1 strategies plays an important role in L2 word
recognition, the findings of Muljani et al. (1998), Akamatsu (1999) and Jackson et al. (1999)
L1 Orthographic Impact 10
make a strong argument for the significance of L2 print experience as well.
Moreover, other studies demonstrated that with increased L2 experience, L2 processing
speed improves and error rate decreases. Haynes and Carr (1990) examined visual processing
among three groups of university students—experienced and less experienced Taiwanese
learners of English and native English speakers. Their result indicated that the performance
patterns of experienced Taiwanese participants were more similar to those of the native
English speakers. Segalowitz and Segalowitz (1993) conducted a lexical decision task to
measure word recognition competence of francophone learners of English in Canada. The
result showed that all participants improved their word recognition performance through
practice (i.e., increased L2 processing experience). The findings of both Haynes and Carr
(1990) and Segalowitz and Segalowitz (1993) provided evidence that L2 processing
experience facilitates performance improvement.
L1-L2 orthographic distance & L1-L2 orthographic interaction.
Although the nature of orthographic knowledge varies from language to language, most
predicted that L2 word recognition will be enhanced when one’s L1 and L2 orthographic
systems share similar representational and structural features. Cross-linguistic research,
comparing L2 learners with varying L1 backgrounds, indeed repeatedly showed superior
word recognition performance among those with related, rather than unrelated, L1
L1 Orthographic Impact 11
orthographic backgrounds (e.g., Koda, 1988; Muljani et al., 1998). Green and Meara (1987)
investigated visual processing strategies of three groups: L1 Spanish (Roman alphabetic),
Arabic (non-Roman alphabetic) and Chinese (non-alphabetic) speakers. They found that the
three groups used different visual processing strategies on the letter-searching task in their
L1s and that they also used remarkably similar visual search strategies used in their
respective L1s when performing the tasks in their L2 English. Therefore, Green and Meara
(1987) argued that L1 writing system may have profound and long-lasting effects on the way
L2 materials are processed.
Contributions of phonemic awareness to L2 word recognition.
Phonemic awareness is a central issue in current L1 reading research. Researchers
claimed that in order to achieve reading mastery in an alphabetic script, children have to
develop awareness that words can be segmented into sequences of phonemes and to acquire
skills to identify phonemic components. They found that phonemic awareness is a very
powerful predictor of reading success for L1 native English-speaking children.
English-speaking children’s phonological difficulties are the most significant and consistent
markers of dyslexia in childhood. In Holm and Dodd’s (1996) study, the result indicated that
their Hong Kong learners (with non-alphabetic L1) had limited phonemic awareness
compared to those students with alphabetic L1 (i.e., learners from Vietnam and Australia).
L1 Orthographic Impact 12
Their findings also implied that learners from non-alphabetic L1 background may have
difficulty learning English due to their poor phonemic awareness.
Modification of L1 cognitive mechanism for word recognition strategies.
Although there are considerable numbers of studies confirming the transfer of L1
orthographic processing strategies to L2 word recognition, few studies deal with the
possibility (or impossibility) of modifying L1 cognitive mechanism that has been developed
for processing L1 orthography. Akamatsu (1999) believes that once an L1 cognitive
mechanism for word recognition is established, it cannot be modified to adapt more efficient
strategies in L2. In Doctor and Klein’s (1992) longitudinal study, they found the bilingual
English-Afrikaans child adopted a more native-like process for Afrikaans word recognition
after two years. The child’s reading of Afrikaans words and non-words improved, which
suggested that she was applying the more consistent grapheme-phoneme correspondence
rules that govern Afrikaans. However, it is still unclear whether those changes result from
greater L2 print experience or an actual change in strategy. As a result, strategy modification
in this field much remains unexplained.
Considerations for Future Research
After looking closely at those relevant studies on L2 word recognition, I generate four
L1 Orthographic Impact 13
considerations for future research in order to more fully understand the significance and
processes of L2 word recognition. They are longitudinal research, qualitative data collection
and analysis, task design and methodology, and increased variation in the L1s and L2s
compared.
Longitudinal Research
As L2 learners acquire more L2 processing experience and more automatized
connections between high frequency words and their lexicon, they may modify their use of
L1-based processing strategies to effectively adapt the L2 orthography. By conducting
longitudinal research, researchers can gain insight into the nature of the cognitive processing
mechanism associated with word recognition. That is, they are able to come closer to
examine whether this mechanism is modifiable once it has been established in L1. Such
research that followed the same L2 participants over time and tested them at regular intervals
would provide useful data, indicating what, if any, changes occurred in processing strategies.
This may offer some clues to train weaker L2 learners. At present, the available data can only
suggest strategic preferences for a given set of L2 learners at a specific point in their L2
acquisition process.
L1 Orthographic Impact 14
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
In most psycholinguistic research, quantitative procedures have been predominantly
used for investigating L2 word recognition. In several previously mentioned experiments,
participants from different L1 orthographic backgrounds performed similar accuracy despite
differences in processing strategies (i.e., qualitative differences). Obviously, the next step
should be to apply qualitative techniques to probe which strategies L2 learners are aware of
employing. Qualitative data may also show that processing differences are more individual
than language-specific or that processes are affected by other unexplored factors. Using
additional qualitative techniques and data collection with quantitative results would provide a
clearer picture of L2 word recognition processes and its development.
Task Design and Methodology
Most tasks used by the studies reviewed are quite uniform and these task designs seem
to become stable and accepted in the field of psycholinguistics. Yet, this fact does not mean
that they are beyond debate. For instance, Chikamatsu (1996) tested word recognition
through the use of decontextualized words, while Jackson et al. (1999) proposed that testing
word recognition in context is important, for it comes closer to the authentic reading
condition. In addition, the tasks using real words and those using pseudo-words sometimes
have conflicting results. Clearly, the construction and selection of the task may have a major
L1 Orthographic Impact 15
effect on the results gained. For this reason, future research should carefully take both the
issues and means into account.
Increased Variation in the L1s and L2s Compared
As we can see, the majority of studies reviewed in L2 word recognition test ESL/EFL
(English as second/foreign language) learners. Very few experiments observe L2 learners of
any other languages. The problem of using exclusively one L2 as the basis for all hypotheses
regarding L2 word recognition lies in the orthographic nature of the L2 itself. That is, English
per se has its own features and could be one of the variables in experiments. To generalize
sound conclusions, future research should include a wider variety of learners with different
L1 backgrounds as well as a variety of target L2s.
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
From the literature on L2 word recognition, we can learn that L1 orthography does have
greater impact on L2 word recognition (and reading comprehension) than previously assumed.
While current researchers’ consensus is that word recognition is a crucial process in reading,
very little (or perhaps nothing) has been done to determine how or if word recognition can be
facilitated.
Given the fact that L1 orthography affects L2 word recognition and even reading, very
L1 Orthographic Impact 16
few studies mentioned the pedagogical implications of the results of their research. Some
researchers only state the problem out there and thus have the ‘So what?’ response from the
audience. Here I would like to point out some implications. First, teachers need to be aware
of similarity and differences between students’ L1 and L2 and provide appropriate guidance
in overcoming processing problems. For example, teachers can take advantage of recent
technology for language learning (e.g., CALL-Computer Assisted Language Learning) and
use extended outside reading programs to implement differentiated instruction (Koda, 1997).
Second, given the evidence that increased L2 processing experience and/or L2 exposure can
enhance performance improvement, providing explicit instruction should be very beneficial
for learners to promote mastery.
Furthermore, Segalowitz (1986) indicated that the need to determine how training in
word recognition, instead of reading strategies, may improve L2 learners’ reading speed. I, as
an English learner with L1 Chinese, believe poor reading comprehension is in part attributed
to inefficient word recognition. I think developing phonemic awareness among learners of
English would be very helpful. ESL/EFL teachers can largely utilize rhyming and phonetic
games to train students to be familiar with the property of the target language in order to
enhance their word recognition competence. Hopefully, this paper would promote a better
understanding of processing variations induced by the orthographic features of different
languages and provide a basis for facilitating the effectiveness of L2 vocabulary instruction.
L1 Orthographic Impact 17
References
Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effect of first language orthographic features on word recognition
processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 381-403.
Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effect of first language orthographic features on second language
reading in text. Language Learning, 53(2), 207-231.
Chikamatsu, N. (1996). The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition: A study of
American and Chinese learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18,
403-432.
Doctor, E. A., & Klein, D. (1992). Phonological processing in bilingual word recognition. In
R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 237-252). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and
orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104-115.
Green, D. W., & Meara, P. (1987). The effects of script on visual search. Second Language
Research, 4, 102-117.
Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading:
A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaking-readers of Chinese. In
T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills
approaches (pp. 375-421). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
L1 Orthographic Impact 18
Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word meaning in context: A cognitive
model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and
vocabulary learning (pp. 153-180). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Holm, A. D., B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition of English
literacy. Cognition, 59, 119-147.
Jackson, N. E., Chen, H., Goldsberry, L., Kim, A., & Vanderwerff, C. (1999). Effects of
variations in orthographic information on Asian and American readers' English text
reading. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 345-379.
Koda, K. (1988). Cognitive process in second language reading: Transfer of L1 reading skills
and strategies. Second Language Research, 4(2), 133-156.
Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effect of L1 orthographic
structures on L2 phonological recording strategies. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12(4), 393-410.
Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: a cross-linguistic
perspective. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.
35-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills.
Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 51-64.
Muljani, D., Koda, K., & Moates, D. R. (1998). The development of word recognition in a
L1 Orthographic Impact 19
second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 99-113.
Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1991). Phonological processes in reading Chinese characters.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 633-643.
Segalowitz, N. S. (1986). Skilled reading in the second language. In J. Vaid (Ed.), Language
processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neurological perspectives (pp. 3-19).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the
differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language
word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369-385.
Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influences on second language word reading: All
roads lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49(3), 447-471.
Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C.A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in
English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners.
Cognition, 87, 129-149.