Abstract
English orthographic learning, among Chinese-L1 children who were beginning to learn English as a foreign language, was documented when: (1) only visual memory was at their disposal, (2) visual memory and either some letter-sound knowledge or some semantic information was available, and (3) visual memory, some letter-sound knowledge and some semantic information were all available. When only visual memory was available, orthographic learning (measured via an orthographic choice test) was meagre. Orthographic learning was significant when either semantic information or letter-sound knowledge supplemented visual memory, with letter-sound knowledge generating greater significance. Although the results suggest that letter-sound knowledge plays a more important role than semantic information, letter-sound knowledge alone does not suffice to achieve perfect orthographic learning, as orthographic learning was greatest when letter-sound knowledge and semantic information were both available. The present findings are congruent with a view that the orthography of a foreign language drives its orthographic learning more than L1 orthographic learning experience, thus extending Share’s (Cognition 55:151–218, 1995) self-teaching hypothesis to include non-alphabetic L1 children’s orthographic learning of an alphabetic foreign language. The little letter-sound knowledge development observed in the experiment-I control group indicates that very little letter-sound knowledge develops in the absence of dedicated letter-sound training. Given the important role of letter-sound knowledge in English orthographic learning, dedicated letter-sound instruction is highly recommended.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data collection for experiment II was complete when G2 took their second OCT. However, G2 continued with their seven 40-min letter-sound sessions. In other words, both G1 and G2 received the same two-part training despite the reverse order.
References
Cheng, Y. L. (2015). Effects of the revelational phonics approach on Chinese-L1 EFL beginners’ knowledge of the English alphabetic principle: Further evidence from ‘whole word’, ‘single letter-sound’, and ‘digraph’ reading. Chang Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8, 347–379.
Cunningham, A. E. (2006). Accounting for children’s orthographic learning while reading text: Do children self-teach? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 56–77.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Share, D. L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading: Examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 185–199.
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing system. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.
Huang, H. S., & Hanley, J. R. (1994). Phonological awareness and visual skills in learning to read Chinese and English. Cognition, 54, 73–98.
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). Reading in different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.
Koda, K. (1989). Effects of L1 orthographic representation on L2 phonological coding strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 201–222.
Liu, D., Chen, X., & Chung, K. K. H. (2015). Performance in a visual search task uniquely predicts reading abilities in third-grade Hong Kong Chinese children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 307–324.
Marshall, J., Pound, C., White-Thomson, M., & Pring, T. (1990). The use of picture/word matching tasks to assist word retrieval in aphasic patients. Aphasiology, 4, 167–184.
Martin, N. (2006). Test for visual perception skills—third edition. California: Western Psychological Services.
McBride-Chang, C., Chow, B. W. Y., Zhong, Y., Burgess, S., & Hayward, W. G. (2005). Chinese character acquisition and visual skills in two Chinese scripts. Reading and Writing, 18, 99–128.
McBride-Chang, C., Zhou, Y., Cho, J.-R., Aram, D., Levin, I., & Tolchinsky, L. (2011). Visual spatial skill: A consequence of learning to read? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 256–262.
Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 71–84.
Ouellette, G., & Fraser, J. R. (2009). What exactly is a yait anyway: The role of semantics in orthographic learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 239–251.
Schwartz, M., Kahn-Horwitz, J., & Share, D. (2014). Orthographic learning and self-teaching in a bilingual and biliterate context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117, 45–58.
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. The British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recording and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129.
Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88.
Wydell, T. N., & Butterworth, B. (1999). A case study of an English–Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Cognition, 70, 273–305.
Zhou, Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Wong, N. (2014). What is the role of visual skills in learning to read? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 776.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Appendices
Appendix A: The Visual-Sequence Matching Test
Item 1: \(\Omega \, \Psi \, \Delta \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Phi \) | Item 5: \(\Delta \, \Theta \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Psi \) | Item 9: \(\Psi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \, \Theta \) |
(1) \(\Omega \, \Psi \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Delta \, \Phi \) | (1) \(\Delta \, \Omega \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Psi \) | (1) \(\Psi \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Delta \, \Theta \) |
(2) \(\Omega \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Delta \, \Theta \, \Phi \) | (2) \(\Delta \, \Theta \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Psi \) | (2) \(\Psi \, \Delta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Theta \) |
(3) \(\Omega \, \Psi \, \Delta \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Phi \) | (3) \(\Delta \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Omega \, \Psi \) | (3) \(\Psi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \, \Theta \) |
(4) \(\Omega \, \Psi \, \Theta \, \Delta \, \Box \,\Phi \) | (4) \(\Delta \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Psi \) | (4) \(\Psi \, \Box \,\Delta \, \Omega \, \Theta \) |
(5) \(\Omega \, \Psi \, \Delta \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Phi \) | (5) \(\Delta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Theta \, \Psi \) | (5) \(\Psi \, \Delta \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Theta \) |
Item 2: \(\Phi \, \Psi \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \) | Item 6: \(\Delta \, \Box \,\Psi \, \Theta \, \Omega \) | Item 10: \(\Psi \, \Phi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \, \Theta \) |
(1) \(\Phi \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | (1) \(\Delta \, \Box \,\Psi \, \Theta \, \Omega \) | (1) \(\Psi \, \Phi \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Delta \, \Theta \) |
(2) \(\Phi \, \Psi \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \) | (2) \(\Delta \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Psi \, \Omega \) | (2) \(\Psi \, \Phi \, \Box \,\Delta \, \Omega \, \Theta \) |
(3) \(\Phi \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Delta \) | (3) \(\Delta \, \Theta \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Omega \) | (3) \(\Psi \, \Phi \, \Delta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Theta \) |
(4) \(\Phi \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Theta \, \Delta \) | (4) \(\Delta \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Omega \) | (4) \(\Psi \, \Phi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \, \Theta \) |
(5) \(\Phi \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Delta \) | (5) \(\Delta \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Psi \, \Omega \) | (5) \(\Psi \, \Phi \, \Omega \, \Delta \, \Box \,\Theta \) |
Item 3: \(\Psi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Theta \, \Delta \) | Item 7: \(\Box \Theta \, \Psi \, \Delta \, \Omega \) | Item 11: \(\Theta \, \Phi \, \Omega \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Delta \) |
(1) \(\Psi \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | (1) \(\Box \Theta \, \Delta \, \Psi \, \Omega \) | (1) \(\Theta \, \Phi \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Psi \, \Delta \) |
(2) \(\Psi \, \Theta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Delta \) | (2) \(\Box \Psi \, \Theta \, \Delta \, \Omega \) | (2) \(\Theta \, \Phi \, \Omega \, \Psi \, \Box \,\Delta \) |
(3) \(\Psi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Theta \, \Delta \) | (3) \(\Box \Delta \, \Theta \, \Psi \, \Omega \) | (3) \(\Theta \, \Phi \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Psi \, \Delta \) |
(4) \(\Psi \, \Theta \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Delta \) | (4) \(\Box \Psi \, \Delta \, \Theta \, \Omega \) | (4) \(\Theta \, \Phi \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Delta \) |
(5) \(\Psi \, \Omega \, \Box \,\Theta \, \Delta \) | (5) \(\Box \Theta \, \Psi \, \Delta \, \Omega \) | (5) \(\Theta \, \Phi \, \Box \,\Psi \, \Omega \, \Delta \) |
Item 4: \(\Box \Theta \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | Item 8: \(\Theta \, \Box \,\Phi \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | Item 12: \(\Box \Omega \, \Delta \, \Phi \, \Psi \, \Theta \) |
(1) \(\Box \Psi \, \Omega \, \Theta \, \Delta \) | (1) \(\Theta \, \Box \,\Phi \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | (1) \(\Box \Omega \, \Phi \, \Delta \, \Psi \, \Theta \) |
(2) \(\Box \Theta \, \Omega \, \Psi \, \Delta \) | (2) \(\Theta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Phi \, \Psi \, \Delta \) | (2) \(\Box \Omega \, \Phi \, \Psi \, \Delta \, \Theta \) |
(3) \(\Box \Omega \, \Psi \, \Theta \, \Delta \) | (3) \(\Theta \, \Box \,\Phi \, \Omega \, \Psi \, \Delta \) | (3) \(\Box \Omega \, \Delta \, \Phi \, \Psi \, \Theta \) |
(4) \(\Box \Theta \, \Psi \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | (4) \(\Theta \, \Box \,\Omega \, \Psi \, \Phi \, \Delta \) | (4) \(\Box \Omega \, \Psi \, \Phi \, \Delta \, \Theta \) |
(5) \(\Box \Psi \, \Theta \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | (5) \(\Theta \, \Box \,\Psi \, \Phi \, \Omega \, \Delta \) | (5) \(\Box \Omega \, \Delta \, \Psi \, \Phi \, \Theta \) |
Appendix B: The Letter-Sound Knowledge Test
-
A.
The 38 letter-sound rules:
-
a.
Single letter-sound rules: e.g., a-[æ], b-[b], c-[k], excluding q
-
b.
Digraph rules:
-
a.
-
B.
The 16 target words:
yam, quaint, prayer, foyer, coil, vault, frown, dawn, zigzag, joust, web, quirk, hut, raptor, curb, boxer
Note
The symbols in brackets are IPA symbols, and they are only used to represent the sounds to which the pupils were exposed and tested.
Appendix C: Practice Words for Experiment-I Letter-Sound Sessions
The 20 practice words:
ham, quit, jaw, way, nail, sailor, boy, zap, girl, fox, flower, jump, yes, void, curt, sour, wow, laud, kid, run
Note
The practice words contained the same 38 letter-sound rules embedded in the LSKT word items.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, YL. English Orthographic Learning in Chinese-L1 Young EFL Beginners. J Psycholinguist Res 46, 1453–1470 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9507-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9507-x