Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1215–1230 | Cite as

Recoding strategies of German learners of English as a foreign language

  • Anke Treutlein
  • Hermann Schöler
  • Karin Landerl
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study investigated whether German learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) acquire additional recoding strategies that they do not need for recoding in the consistent German orthography. Based on the psycholinguistic grain size theory (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005) we expected students with little experience in EFL to use the same small-grain recoding strategy as in German, while more advanced students were expected to switch flexibly between small and large grain size recoding strategies when reading English nonwords. German students in Grades 5, 7, and 9, as well as university students were presented with an experimental nonword reading paradigm introduced by Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, and Schneider (2003) which assesses the effects of language (nonwords derived from German vs. English), orthographic neighborhood, item length and presentation format (blocked vs. mixed) on reading latencies and accuracies. The data were analyzed using hierarchical linear models. The youngest age group did not use larger units to read English nonwords, but mostly applied simple grapheme-phoneme translation, as they would in their first language. University students were able to switch flexibly between large- and small size recoding strategies.

Keywords

English as a foreign language Recoding Psycholinguistic grain size theory Characteristics of orthography 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language reading in text. Language Learning, 53, 207–231. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 621–635. doi: 10.1017/S0142716403000316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, C. (1994). Spelling routes (or roots or rutes). In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling. Theory, process and intervention (pp. 27–49). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, G. D. A., & Deavers, R. P. (1999). Units of analysis in nonword reading: Evidence from children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 208–242. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diehr, B., & Frisch, S. (2010). A roadmap to reading: Bewusstmachende Verfahren im Umgang mit der englischen Schriftsprache [A roadmap to reading: Techniques of raising awareness for the use of written English]. Grundschule, 9, 26–28.Google Scholar
  6. Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31–54. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0201_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerlach, D. (2013). Wordly-Lesetraining [Wordly – reading exercises]. http://www.wordly.de/.
  8. Göbel, K., Vieluf, S., & Hesse, H. G. (2010). Die Sprachentransferunterstützung im Deutsch- und Englischunterricht bei Schülerinnen und Schülern unterschiedlicher Sprachlernerfahrung [Language transfer support in German and English lessons including students of varied expertise in language learning]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55, 101–122.Google Scholar
  9. Goswami, U. (1995). Phonological development and reading by analogy: What is analogy, and what is it not? Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 139–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00080.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goswami, U., Gombert, J. E., & Fraca de Barrera, L. (1998). Children’s orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English, French and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 19–52. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400010560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goswami, U., Ziegler, J., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading development in English and German. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 648–664. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 235–247. doi: 10.1017/S0142716403000134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2008). Development of word reading fluency and orthographic spelling in a consistent orthography: An 8-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 150–161. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marinelli, C. V., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2013). Orthographic neighborhood-size effects on the reading aloud of Italian children with and without dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 333–349. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2012.723080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Näslund, J. C. (1999). Phonemic and graphemic consistency: Effects on decoding for German and American children. Reading and Writing, 11, 129–152. doi: 10.1023/A:1008090007198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Perfetti, C. A., Cao, F., & Booth, J. (2013). Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: How Chinese research informs a universal science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 5–21. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2012.689786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.103.1.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43, 103–121. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rau, A., Moeller, K., & Landerl, K. (2014). The transition from sublexical to lexical processing in a consistent orthography: An eye tracking study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 224–233. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.857673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rau, A., Moll, K., Snowling, M., & Landerl, K. (2015). Effects of orthographic consistency on eye movement behavior: German and English children and adults process the same words differently. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 92–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2005). HLM for Windows (6.02) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
  24. SR Research. (2008). ExperimentBuilder (Version 1.5.58) [Computer software]. Mississauga, ON: SR Research.Google Scholar
  25. Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107–136. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van den Boer, M., de Jong, P. F., & Haentjens-van Meeteren, M. (2013). Modeling the length effect: Specifying the relation with visual and phonological correlates of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 243–256. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2012.683222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wimmer, H., & Goswami, U. (1994). The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development: Word recognition in English and German children. Cognition, 51, 91–103. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90010-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ziegler, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Jacobs, A. M., & Braun, M. (2001). Identical words are read differently in different languages. Psychological Science, 12, 379–384. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anke Treutlein
    • 1
  • Hermann Schöler
    • 2
  • Karin Landerl
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.University of Education HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  4. 4.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options