Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 279–298 | Cite as

The impact of L1 writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings



Orthographic knowledge, the general ability to learn, store, and use information about the orthographic form of words (Stanovich & West, 1989), is a crucial skill for supporting literacy. Although the development of first language (L1) orthographic awareness is impacted by the characteristics of a learner’s L1 writing system, relatively little is known about what impact the L1 may have on second language (L2) orthographic awareness. In this study, English language learners from three L1s (French, Hebrew, Mandarin Chinese), plus L1 English speakers, were tested on their English spelling knowledge using a word-pseudohomophone discrimination task. In addition to allowing for the cross-linguistic comparisons, items were designed to examine whether learners had differing performance on pseudohomophones (misspellings) that targeted vowels versus consonants. Consistent with previous research (e.g., McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Cong, & Li, 2004), the L1 Chinese speakers had the highest (L2) accuracy, followed by the L1 Hebrew and the L1 French speakers. The participants from non-alphabetic languages (Hebrew and Chinese) had significantly lower accuracy on items with misspellings involving vowels compared to consonants, and the size of the vowel-consonant accuracy difference varied substantially across L1 groups. The results demonstrate that the characteristics of a learner’s L1 writing system, particularly the existence of vowel and consonant graphemes, impact the development of L2 orthographic knowledge and sensitivity to different types of word misspellings.


L2 literacy Orthographic awareness ESL Spelling 



This study was funded by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, BCS-1421354, a Language Learning Dissertation Grant, the Israel Heritage Room Committee Scholarship (part of the Nationality Rooms Scholarship Program at the University of Pittsburgh), and a research grant from the University of Pittsburgh Department of Linguistics. The author was also supposed by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. The author thanks Philippe Prévost, Anat Prior, Wei-Chang Shann, and David Wible for their support during data collection for this study. The author also thanks Alan Juffs, Keiko Koda, Charles Perfetti, Yasuhiro Shirai, and Natasha Tokowicz for their comments and feedback on this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.


  1. Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 14(1), 39–59. doi: 10.1023/a:1008147606320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic–Hebrew–English-speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing, 16(7), 611–634. doi: 10.1023/a:1025838029204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, M. J. (1990). Begnning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 381–403. doi: 10.1023/a:1008053520326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language reading in text. Language Learning, 53(2), 207–231. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(2), 140–147. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron, J. (1979). Orthographic and word-specific mechanisms in children’s reading of words. Child Development, 50(1), 60–72. doi: 10.2307/1129042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonatti, L. L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science, 16(6), 451–459. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01556.x.Google Scholar
  10. Borowsky, R., Owen, W., & Masson, M. J. (2002). Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects. Memory and Cognition, 30(6), 969–987. doi: 10.3758/BF03195781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, R. (1985). When children write nonwords to dictation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40(1), 133–151. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(85)90069-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. (1990). Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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(04), 403–432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chitiri, H.-F., Sun, Y., Willows, D. M., & Taylor, I. (1992). Word recognition in second-language reading. In H. Richard Jackson (Ed.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 83, pp. 283–297). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Cobb, T. (2000). One size fits all? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(2), 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, C. (1998). Masked homophone and pseudohomophone priming in children and adults. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(6), 625–651. doi: 10.1080/016909698386401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Domínguez, A. B. (1996). Evaluating of long-term effects of teaching phonological analysis abilities on reading and writing acquisition. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 19(76), 83–96. doi: 10.1174/021037096762905571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 281–299. doi: 10.1023/A:1008093232622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  20. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential to learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The Flankers Task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. In C. Bundesen & H. Shibuya (Eds.), Visual selective attention (pp. 101–118). East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic- and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(02), 289–315. doi: 10.1017/S014271640300016X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fender, M. (2008). Spelling knowledge and reading development: Insights from Arab ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 19–42.Google Scholar
  24. Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 39(2), 211–251. doi: 10.1080/14640748708401785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(05), 263–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(1), 104–115. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.104.Google Scholar
  27. Goswami, U. (1988a). Children’s use of analogy in learning to spell. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(1), 21–33. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1988.tb01077.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goswami, U. (1988b). Orthographic analogies and reading development. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40(2), 239–268. doi: 10.1080/02724988843000113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goswami, U. (1999). The relationship between phonological awareness and orthographic representation in different orthographies. In M. Harris & G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and write: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 134–156). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Goswami, U. (2012). Universals of reading: Developmental evidence for linguistic plausibility. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(05), 287–288. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. E. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Green, D. W., Liow, S. J. R., Tng, S. K., & Zielinski, S. (1996). Are visual search procedures adapted to the nature of the script? British Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 311–326. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02592.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Green, D. W., & Meara, P. (1987). The effects of script on visual search. Second Language Research, 3(2), 102–113. doi: 10.1177/026765838700300202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2008). Influence of first language orthographic experience on second language decoding and word learning. Language Learning, 58(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00433.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harris, M., & Giannouli, V. (1999). Learning to read and spell in Greek: The importance of letter knowledge and morphological awareness. In M. Harris & G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and write: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hayes-Harb, R. (2006). Native speakers of Arabic and ESL texts: Evidence for the transfer of written word identification processes. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker–readers of Chinese. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 375–422). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition of English literacy. Cognition, 59(2), 119–147. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00691-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kang, H., & Simpson, G. B. (1996). Development of semantic and phonological priming in a shallow orthography. Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 860–866. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.5.860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Kimura, Y., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Reading and writing in English and Japanese: A cross-cultural study of young children*. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 143–153. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1983.tb00552.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Koda, K. (1989). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development of L2 reading proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22(6), 529–540. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02780.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koda, K. (1998). The role of phonemic awareness in second language reading. Second Language Research, 14(2), 194–215. doi: 10.1191/026765898676398460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 51–64. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ktori, M., & Pitchford, N. J. (2008). Effect of orthographic transparency on letter position encoding: A comparison of Greek and English monoscriptal and biscriptal readers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 258–281. doi: 10.1080/01690960701536797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51. doi: 10.1177/026553229901600103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laxon, V. J., Masterson, J., Pool, M., & Keating, C. (1992). Nonword naming: Further exploration of the pseudohomophone effect in terms of orthographic neighborhood size, graphemic changes, spelling-sound consistency, and reader accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 730–748. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lukatela, G., Eaton, T., Lee, C. H., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (2002). Equal homophonic priming with words and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 3–21. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.3.Google Scholar
  51. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). Phonological access of the lexicon: Evidence from associative priming with pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(4), 951–966. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.17.4.951.Google Scholar
  52. Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Making things difficult in lexical decision: The impact of pseudohomophones and transposed-letter nonwords on frequency and semantic priming effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1267–1289. doi: 10.1037/a0020125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., Doi, L. M., McBride-Chang, C., & Petersen, A. (1996). On the bases of two subtypes of development dyslexia. Cognition, 58(2), 157–195. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00679-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martin, R. C. (1982). The pseudohomophone effect: The role of visual similarity in non-word decisions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 34(3), 395–409. doi: 10.1080/14640748208400851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin, K. I., & Juffs, A. (2011). Reading in English: A comparison of native Arabic, native Chinese, and native English speakers. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  56. McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K. K. Y., & Li, Y. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(2), 93–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J.-R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A., et al. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(2), 140–160. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McBride-Chang, C., & Kail, R. V. (2002). Cross-cultural similarities in the predictors of reading acquisition. Child Development, 73(5), 1392–1407. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morais, J., Bertelson, P., Cary, L., & Alegria, J. (1986). Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition, 24(1–2), 45–64. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90004-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7(4), 323–331. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(79)90020-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Näslund, J. C., & Schneider, W. (1996). Kindergarten letter knowledge, phonological skills, and memory processes: Relative effects on early literacy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62(1), 30–59. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1996.0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nassaji, H., & Geva, E. (1999). The contribution of phonological and orthographic processing skills to adult ESL reading: Evidence from native speakers of Farsi. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(02), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. New, B., Araújo, V., & Nazzi, T. (2008). Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1223–1227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02228.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2006). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a syllable level? Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 308–315. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.4.308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 97–120). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  66. Perea, M., Mallouh, R., & Carreiras, M. (2010). The search for an input-coding scheme: Transposed-letter priming in Arabic. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(3), 375–380. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.3.375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Perea, M., & Pérez, E. (2008). Beyond alphabetic orthographies: The role of form and phonology in transposition effects in Katakana. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(1), 67–88. doi: 10.1080/01690960802053924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In G. E. MacKinnon, T. G. Waller, & M. Daneman (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp. 109–143). New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  69. Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 33(3), 283–319.Google Scholar
  70. Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y., Fiez, J., Nelson, J., Bolger, D. J., & Tan, L. H. (2007). Reading in two writing systems: Accommodation and assimilation of the brain’s reading network. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(02), 131–146. doi: 10.1017/S1366728907002891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Randall, M., & Meara, P. (1988). How Arabs read Roman letters. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(2), 133–145.Google Scholar
  72. Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (1999). Lexical and nonlexical phonological priming in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 461–481. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.461.Google Scholar
  73. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reynolds, M., & Besner, D. (2005). Basic processes in reading: A critical review of pseudohomophone effects in reading aloud and a new computational account. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(4), 622–646. doi: 10.3758/BF03196752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ryan, A., & Meara, P. (1991). The case of the invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading English words. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(2), 531–540.Google Scholar
  76. Ryan, A., & Meara, P. (1996). A diagnostic test for vowel blindness in Arabic speaking learners of English. The _lognostics Virtual Library. Retrieved from The _lognostics Virtual Library database. Swansea University.Google Scholar
  77. Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Bilingual oral reading fluency and reading comprehension: The case of Arabic/Hebrew (L1)—English (L2) readers. Reading and Writing, 16(8), 717–736. doi: 10.1023/a:1027310220036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saigh, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Difficulties with vocabulary word form: The case of Arabic ESL learners. System, 40(1), 24–36. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schneider, W., Küspert, P., Roth, E., Visé, M., & Marx, H. (1997). Short- and long-term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66(3), 311–340. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1997.2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schoonbaert, S., & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(3), 333–367. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Seidenberg, M. S. (1992). Beyond orthographic depth in reading: Equitable division of labor. In F. Ram & K. Leonard (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 85–118). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  82. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Seidenberg, M. S., Petersen, A., MacDonald, M. C., & Plaut, D. C. (1996). Pseudohomophone effects and models of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 48–62. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shatil, E., Share, D. L., & Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution of kindergarten writing to grade 1 literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(01), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. doi: 10.2307/747605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  88. Taft, M., & Russell, B. (1992). Pseudohomophone naming and the word frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 45(1), 51–71. doi: 10.1080/14640749208401315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(03), 255–272. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7–26. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00092-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Velan, H., & Frost, R. (2009). Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 285–302. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influences on second language word reading: All roads lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49(3), 447–471. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling performance of Chinese children using English as a second language: Lexical and visual–orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(01), 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S0142716403000018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55(1), 71–98. doi: 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00290.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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(2), 129–149. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00232-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yates, M., Locker, L., & Simpson, G. (2003). Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones. Memory and Cognition, 31(6), 856–866. doi: 10.3758/BF03196440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., et al. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4), 551–559. doi: 10.1177/0956797610363406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations