Advertisement

Role of Orthography in Literacy Acquisition and Literacy Problems Among Monolinguals and Bilinguals

  • R. Malatesha Joshi
Chapter
Part of the Literacy Studies book series (LITS, volume 2)

Abstract

There may be various reasons, such as the number of books available at home, genetics, type of instruction etc., as to why a child has difficulty learning to read and spell. Additionally, the type of writing system of a language can also affect the literacy acquisition. According to “Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH),” the degree of correspondence between orthography and phonology is an important factor of the way literacy skills are acquired. Seymour (Theoretical framework for beginning reading in different orthographies. In R.M. Joshi & P.G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) examined the speed and accuracy of familiar word reading and nonword reading in 15 different European writing systems and concluded that “the establishment of an effective sight vocabulary and decoding needs about 2 years of reading experience in English as against 1-year in many European languages.” The questions that arise, then, are how does the orthography of one language influence the acquisition of literacy skills in another language? If a person is dyslexic in one language, would he/she be dyslexic in other languages as well? Can reading models, such as the Componential Model, that have proven beneficial for the assessment of reading problems among English-speaking children be useful to other orthographies such as Spanish orthography? This chapter presents results from our studies that show that orthographic differences do make a contribution in the acquisition of literacy skills, and that certain orthographies can slow down literacy acquisition in beginning readers.

Keywords

Word Recognition Reading Comprehension Literacy Skill Poor Reader Writing System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the editors for inviting me to contribute a chapter in a volume dedicated to Dr. Iris Levin. Iris has contributed widely to various aspects of literacy and orthography. In this chapter, I have tried to combine these two areas in honoring her.

References

  1. Aaron, P. G., Franz, S., & Manges, A. (1990). Dissociation between pronunciation and comprehension in reading disabilities. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 1–22.Google Scholar
  2. Aaron, P. G., & Joshi, R. M. (1992). Reading problems: remediation and consultation. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Boulware-Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: an alternative to the discrepancy model of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Hyperlexia Association. (2002). What is hyperlexia? Retrieved December 3, 2007. http://www.hyperlexia.org/aha_what_is.html .
  6. Berninger, V. W., Dunn, A., Lin, S. C., & Shimada, S. (2004). School evolution: scientist-practitioner educators creating optimal learning environments for all students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carver, R. P. (1998). Predicting reading level in Grades 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: testing theory relevant to simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (eds). (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: a comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crain, S. (1989). Why poor readers misunderstand spoken sentences. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability (pp. 30–42). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic child. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  13. de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feitelson, D. (1966). The alphabetic principle in Hebrew and German contrasted with the alphabetic principle in English. In P. Tyler (Ed.), Linguistics and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  16. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). The case for early reading interventions. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: implications for early intervention (pp. 243–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Frith, U., & Snowling, M. (1983). Reading for meaning and reading for sound in autistic and dyslexic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial & Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  22. Healey, J. (1982). The enigma of hyperlexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson, L. (1984). Orthographies and reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Hinshelwood, J. (1895). Word-blindness and visual memory. The Lancet, 21, 1564–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hinshelwood, J. (1902). Four cases of word-blindness. The Lancet, 1, 358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: an Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Dyslexia Association. (2003). What is dyslexia? Retrieved December 3, 2007. http:///www.interdys.org/FAQWhatis.htm .Google Scholar
  28. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karanth, P. (2003). Cross-linguistic study of acquired reading disorders. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karanth, P. (2007). The Kagunita of Kannada – Learning to read and write an Indian alphasyllabary. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 389–404). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Lebrun, Y., Van Endert, C., & Szliwowski, H. (1988). Trilingual hyperlexia. In L. K. Obler & D. Fein (Eds.), The exceptional brain (pp. 253–264). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1999). Reading in two alphabets. American Psychologist, 53, 1057–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mirak, L. J., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moats, L. C. (2001). Overcoming the language gap. American Educator, 29, 4–9.Google Scholar
  35. Obler, L. (1984). Dyslexia in bilinguals. In R. N. Malatesha & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Dyslexia: a global issue (pp. 477–496). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2005). Genetics of dyslexia. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: a handbook (pp. 453–472). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency theory in reading ability. In M. Daneman, G. E. MacKinnnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: advances in theory and practice (pp. 109–143). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Prakash, P., & Joshi, R. M. (1995). Orthography and reading in Kannada: a Dravidian language. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy (pp. 95–108). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Raven, J. C. (1984). Raven’s progressive matrices. London, UK: Lewis.Google Scholar
  41. Seymour, P. H. K. (2007). Theoretical framework for beginning reading in different orthographies. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 441–462). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E., Liberman, A., Brady, S., et al. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stothard, S. (1994). The nature and treatment of reading comprehension difficulties. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 85–102). London: Whurr.Google Scholar
  45. Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial intervention for children with dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: a handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: a two-year follow-up of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: bringing science to scale (pp. 73–120). Baltimore: York Press.Google Scholar
  47. Woodcock, R. C., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (1999). Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  48. Woodcock, R. C., Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2005). Bateria III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  49. Wydell, T. N., & Butterworth, B. L. (1999). A case study of an English-Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Cognition, 19, 491–514.Google Scholar
  50. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: an experimental investigation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education and Human DevelopmentTexas A & M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations