Are alphabetic language -derived models of L2 reading relevant to L1 logographic background readers?

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that second language (L2) reading research, which has been informed by studies involving first language (L1) alphabetic English reading, may be less relevant to L2 readers with non-alphabetic reading backgrounds, such as Chinese readers with an L1 logographic (Chinese character) learning history. We provide both neuroanatomical and behavioural evidence from Chinese language reading studies to support our claims. The paper concludes with an argument outlining the need for a universal L2 reading model which can adequately account for readers with diverse L1 orthographic language learning histories.

Keywords:

• first language reading
• second language reading
• alphabetic-language reading models
• language distance effects in reading

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by a Science & Technology grant of Shanghai Maritime University (No. 20110065). The views in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the funding agency. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments which have helped improve the clarity of the manuscript.

Notes

1. There is some controversy on this point, however. For example, Mattingly (1992) argues that logography, such as Chinese characters, should be more accurately regarded as ‘logosyllabic’ rather than ‘logographic’ because of the prevalence of phonetic and semantic radicals used in the script.

2. When writing Chinese words in English, numbers are used to indicate the level of tone (Concise English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary, 1999).