.:TAJ M. L. ~ItM IL / I< B, /J1o.5G,-J-rI#l( / p. 1), PE,q/2..Si>~ J ~

1<. i3R/l/l. (GDS. JI I-14T-JP8o~{< D/fr ~~/;J8 /2e:=~~!'I: JloL. 7Il.MA-H()JJqflJ N::[: £,z.l.d~""IV}.i=:CHAPTER 41

Second-Language Readingas a Case Study of ReadingScholarship in the 20th CenturyElizabeth B. BernhardtStanford University

This chapter discusses the conflation of factors surrounding the concept of second-lan-guage reading. Indeed, the term second-language reading signifies different phenomenadepending on the context in which the term is used. If one chooses to emphasize read-ing, then the term may refer to the interesting role that second languages have playedas contributors to early theories of reading. At the same time, at the level of practice, thesingle purpose frequently cited for learning a second language is for reading it. Or, atthe research level, the term may signify the process of reading in a language other thanthe mother tongue. If one chooses to emphasize the first part of the term, second lan-guage, other images are evoked. At the level of policy, the term may signify much ofwhat became critical problems for public school educators, mainly reading educators,centered on the notion of immigrant children learning to read in English, their secondlanguage. Or, at the level of practice, the term may refer to the principle vehicle for learn-ing a second language-reading material. At the level of research, the term may evokenotions of cross-lingual comparisons. Yet another dimension to the term is that of lan-guage. In the notoriously monolingual Anglophone world language is frequently syn-onymous with English and, therefore, second language refers to all languages other thanEnglish. This monolingualism, that is, English-language monolingualism, is such adominant dimension in the Anglophone world that it is often difficult to get even themost astute scholars to think about the world in ways other than with an Anglophoneview. Scholarship on language planning, referring to concepts such as linguistic impe-rialism (Phillipson, 1992; Tollefson, 1991), and on multiculturalism (McKay &Weinstein-Shr, 1993), documents this construction. Whatever the emphasis or/which-ever component is chosen for foregrounding, it is clear that all of these significationsconflate to form a diverse, complicated, and frustrating landscape to traverse, let aloneexplain or predict. I

"Reading" as a field of scholarly inquiry contains interesting reflections of the mul-tiple meanings of second-language reading as a part of the Anglophone world. "~eading

791

792 LlTEHt\CY POLICIES

scholarship" by and large exists in the English-speaking world of North America, Eng-land, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. The only real exception to thisovergeneralization is reading scholarship in the Netherlands. The French and the Rus-sians, who have had such an influence on literary reading and on late-20th-centurytext interpretation (e.g., Bahktin, 1981; Foucault, 1972) and the Spanish and the Ger-mans, too, have no concept of reading (as in "learning to read") other than in the senseof reading difficulty and disa bili ty (Biglmaier, 1991). This chapter considers the extentto which these factors, Anglophilia in particular, have contributed to the constructionof the field of reading and to reading research in the 20th century.

on investiBuswell (1languageschologicalsaid explicspecimens

Judd aning silentl:ent disposcontrast tractive app

THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF SECOND-LANGUAGE READINGIN READING RESEARCH, PRACTICE, AND POLICY Aprinte

which tlwhich itit is assuas thosetive braibooks, e

Second Language and Early Reading Research

Reading research, in its earliest inception, actually acknowledged reading in lan-guages other than "the vernacular" as an important dimension of investigations intothe reading process. [aval (1878) and Cattell (1886) each used foreign words in theirstudies on perception in the reading process. They found that the reading of a foreignlanguage text was more cognitively fatiguing than the reading of a native languagetext. In the same time period, Huey (1909) cited the work of Erdmann and Dodge(1898), working in Germany, which uncovered similar evidence. By the close of the19th century, it was generally accepted knowledge that foreign language reading is acase of effortful reading even among highly literate adult subjects.

Huey (1909) used foreign language reading as examples and counterexamples to il-lustrate the psychology of reading. In a general explanation of the reading process, oneeerily predictive of severallate-20th-century findings, he stated:

In fact, thethat

most ofcharacteforeign-lcompar,the same

Our words are thoroughly organized according to these general associative habits of ourlanguage, and when any given series has occurred in our reading, the sort of words andthe sentence forms that belong in sequence with these are subexcited in advance of theirappearance on the page, and need but slight cues from the page to cause them to springinto perpetual consciousness. (p. 142)That the general meaning dawns upon the reader precedent to the full sentence-utteranceis evidenced by the many cases in which variant words of equivalent meaning are read,and also by the comparative ease with which a reader may paraphrase the thought ofwhathe reads. This is especially noticeable in the case of a person reading a foreign languagewhich he does not pronounce easily but which he comprehends rather rapidly. Here thevisual word and the phrase precepts touch off total meanings which clothe themselves, asthe meanings become articulate, in English sentences, and we have as a result the mongrelreading which passes for French or German in so many modern language classes. (p. 148)

In the stween thereading, aistudent of91). Perhawork. In tlJudd and I(p.156) anspent.

One wereading, V\

and Busw.tional prolcurriculurwere refleviews of rIn the final section of The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, H uey turns to issues of

curricular time, arguing that reading research will contribute to efficiency. In thisarena, too, he uses the example of foreign language learning, writing tha t "the learningof foreign languages, ancient or modern, will in many quarters undergo considerablerevision in the direction of economy, when the facts are clearly grasped as to what con-stitutes the essence of natural reading" (p. 428). This is an interesting concern on thepart of Huey given that, as this chapter argues, that concern virtually disappearedfrom reading research in the century that followed.

It did not disappear, however, without capturing the attention of two additionalreading researchers, Judd and Buswell, who might be considered precursors of themodernist-psychological view of reading. In the justification for their watershed work

Second Iof Ameri

Languageas the curlin, jeffersThe Puritsuch dive

ing in Ian-.ations into.ds in their)f a foreign~languagend Dodgelose of the::ading is a

SECOND-LANGUAGE RE/\DING 793

)ING

on investigating silent reading as a viable means of reading instruction, Judd andBuswell (1922) noted: "It was the purpose of this investigation to deal with the foreignlanguages as examples of reading for the purpose of throwing light on the general psy-chological and educational character of the reading process." They continued, "let it besaid explicitly that this is an inquiry into reading .... it deals with these languages asspecimens" (p. 91).

Judd and Buswell were intent on understanding the subprocesses involved in read-mg silently for comprehension and for examining "reading attitude," meaning differ-ent dispositions toward text with regard to reading purpose and text type. Theycontrast the "mechanical approach" (p. 4) of the "grammatical attitude" (p. 5) with anactive approach. They summarized their work with:

nerica, Eng-ion to thisind the Rus-Oth-centurynd the Ger-in the sense:s the extentonstruction

A printed page turns out to be, as shown by this study, a source of a mass of impressionswhich the active mind begins to organize and arrange with reference to some patternwhich it is trained to work out. .,. Given a printed book, a pair of eyes, an active brain, andit is assumed that whatever associations are being set up must be of the same general typeas those set up when a book printed in the vernacular is similarly held before eyes and ac-tive brain. The fact is that a great variety of results can issue from the coming together ofbooks, eyes, and brains. (pp. 4-5)

In fact, the main conclusion to the second-language dimension of the study was indeedthat

:terancere read,of whatnguage[ere the'lves, aslongrelJ.148)

most of the pupils who have had a corresponding amount [three years) of French showcharacteristic symptoms of reading, although their reading is of a labored type .... matureforeign-language records show that a foreign language can be read in a manner directlycomparable to the reading of the vernacular ... the manner of reading is fundamentallythe same. (p. 91)

nples to il-'ocess, one

issues ofy. In thislearningsiderable/hat con-n on theppeared

In the study, Judd and Buswell contended there were significant differences be-tween the reading of French and Latin: French showed characteristic symptoms ofreading, and Latin did not. They noted, for example, "that m no case does a third-yearstudent of the best grade in seven high schools in and around Chicago read Latin" (p.91). Perhaps further archival research would reveal additional agendas behind theirwork. In the policy implications section of their report on the Chicago public schools,Judd and Buswell noted that the continuation of Latin in the schools is "preposterous"(p. 156) and seemed to conceive of the learning of French as school time relatively wellspent.

One wonders, of course, that if the Judd-Buswell investigation was purely aboutreading, what actually motivated the vociferous attack on the learning of Latin? Juddand Buswell were highly visible advocates of a scientific approach to solving educa-tional problems. Perhaps they simply wanted to begin pushing the educators makingcurriculum recommendations to base them on laboratory studies. Judd and Buswellwere reflections of their own time, and their writings are clear artifacts of particularviews of public schooling.

ts of our-rds andof their

) spring

Second Language and the Early Phaseof American Public Education

lditionalrs of theed work

Languages other than English in the American school curriculum ha ve a history as oldas the curriculum itself. Major figures in American intellectual history such as Frank-lin, Jefferson, and Webster all weighed ill on the issue as a part of the Puritan legacy.The Puritans, "although proud of unrestricted immigration, ... wanted to ensure thatsuch diversity would not destroy what ... was freedom's prototype. To overcome the

794 LITERACY POLlCIl-::S

heterogeneity that they feared threatened the unity and example of their country, theyrelied on education" (Carlson, 1975, p. 4). Puritan education focused onProtestant-based values and systems and dismissed as damnable (literally) andanti-Christian any alternative views. The Puritans were so focused on complete accep-tance of their lifestyle that they held no compunction about massacring native peoplesor of stockading even clergy whom they suspected of some degree of disloyalty. Ac-ceptance and "the imperious quest for conformity" (Carlson, 1975, P: 11), character-ized the 17th-century legacy handed to the Founders.

The Puritan legacy of "educating for homogeneity" (Carlson, 1975, p. 14)-basedas it was on a religious agenda-found its way into the 18th century as part of a secu-lar political agenda embodied most clearly, but not exclusively, by Franklin (Carlson,1975). In the guise of providing intellectual leadership, Franklin, for example,opened charity schools for German immigrants. The express purpose, however, wasto eliminate the German language and German mentality from the colonies. Franklinconsidered the English system far superior. Franklin's writings also contain gener-ally disparaging comments about students wasting time learning modern languages"often without Success" (Labaree, 1961, p. 108).

It is, of course, true that other Founders such as Jefferson and Webster were notcompletely hostile to the notion of the learning of languages. Jefferson called formodern languages in his 1817 curriculum (Jefferson, 1955). Webster also included thestudy of modern languages other than English in his interest in vocational study(Rudolph, 1965). Yet dominant was the spirit of a standardized American languagethat would not only unify the country politically, but potentially out-English theEnglish. Both Adams (1852) and Webster (1789) underlined the critical link betweennational unity and linguistic unity (Rudolph, 1965). Bernhardt (1998) commentedthat "early America can be characterized by the dialectic between a utilitarian viewof language study and the messianic establishment of American English as a mani-fest destiny" (p. 43).

This backdrop of the 18th and 19th centuries is particularly key in conceptualizingthe relationship of second languages to American schooling and most specifically inconfronting the role of second languages in reading research. Yet, it is, of course, thefirst 20 years of the 20th century-the American century-that make the case for theargument. These years, marked by major southern and eastern European immigra-tions, the American Industrial Revolution, and the First World War, critically influ-enced the beginnings of the public school bureaucracy.

The major political movement of the time was known as" Americanization." It be-came particularly strong after the First World War, in which American sentiments forfighting for the world were high and so were feelings of suspicion toward foreigners.In 1918, the u.s. Commissioner of Education referred to Americanization "as a warmeasure" (Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1918, p. 132).

The federal office charged with implementing Americanization programs was theDepartment of the Interior, due to its control over immigration matters. In a criticalspeech in New York City in 1919, Franklin Lane, Secretary of the Interior, laid out thephilosophical groundwork of Americanization:

There is no one thing so supremely essential in a government such as ours, where deci-sions of such importance must be made by public opinion, as that every man and womanand child shall know one tongue-that each may speak to every other and that all shall beinformed. There can be neither national unity in ideals or in purpose unless there is somecornmon method of communication through which may be conveyed the thought of theNation. All Americans must be taught to read and write and think [emphasis from Lane] inone language; this is a primary condition to that growth which all nations expect of us, andwhich we demand of ourselves. (p. 11)

In orderCongress upersons "uand prepaJ(Departmeteacher salpreparatio

DocumeWomen(UThe BlendirEducation: .Schoolingtion, laid asettings. Tlization" (TEnglish as

The desdismal. Cainferior, an(p. 43). Ca-sad yet insized" in sc(1930), not:indicated t

There is,tenseparwhich istry and tl(Lagema

Addams c:were actuswere twicetributed trwas delibechildren w

Immigrin Americ:that of JeV'Hirsch Foi.dreds of crsistance to"cheder." .[leaders ofdren fromwerenotaat the tirruNew York

Itwoulagainst tharrived intive count

country, theyfocused on

literally) andnplete accep-ative peoplesisloyalty. Ac-1), character-

I. 14)-basedart of a secu-lin (Carlson,or example,owever, wasies. Franklinntain gener-nlanguages

:er were notn called forncluded theional studyin languageEnglish thenkbetween:ommentedtarian view: as a rnani-

~ptualizingscifically incourse, the.ase for the1 immigra-:ally influ-

ion." It be-iments fororeigners."as a war

ns was the1 a criticallid out the

-re deci-womanshall beis someit of the.ane] inuS,and

SECOND-LANGUAGEREADING 795

In order to meet this patriot demand, the Americanization Bill was forwarded toCongress in 1919. This bill called for a program in the education of "illiterates" and forpersons "unable to understand, speak, read, or write in English" and in the "trainingand preparation of teachers, supervisors, and directors, for such educational work"(Department of the Interior, 1919, P: 3). The bill allocated $12,500,000 over 7 years forteacher salaries and an additional $750,000 over 7 years for teacher and supervisorpreparation programs.

Documents such as Suggestions for Americanization Work Among Foreign-BornWomen (U.S. Naturalization Bureau, 1921), books such as Democracy and Assimilation:The Blending of Immigrant Heritages in America (Drachsler, 1920) and Adult ImmigrationEducation: Its Scope, Content, and Methods (Sharlip & Owens, 1925), and studies such asSchooling of the Immigrant (Thompson, 1920), sponsored by the Carnegie Founda-tion, laid out the groundwork for effective Americanization programs in educationalsettings. The first principle in using "the school as the chief instrument of American-ization" (Thompson, 1920, P: 1) found in any of these documents is to insure the use ofEnglish as the sole language of the classroom.

The descriptions of the receiving end of Americanization programs are generallydismal. Cavello (1958) wrote that "we soon got the idea that Italian meant somethinginferior, and a barrier was erected between children of Italian origin and their paren ts"(p. 43). Cavellos volume, a biography of an immigrant who became an educator, is asad yet inspirational tale of the feelings surrounding the process of being" American-ized" in school. Jane Addams, in fact, concurred with Cavellos description. Addams(1930), noting the primary role of the American school in the Americanization process,indicated that

There is a certain indictment which may be justly brought, in that the public school too of-ten separates the child from his parents and widens that old gulf between fathers and sonswhich is never so cruel and so wide as it isbetween the immigrants who come to this coun-try and their children who have gone to public school and feel that they have learned it all.(Lagemann, 1985, pp. 136-137)

Addams continued by arguing that while the numbers of incarcerations of immigrantswere actually lower than of native-born Americans, arrests of immigrant childrenwere twice as high as compared with the children of native-born Americans. She at-tributed these statistics to a failure of the schools-that the American public schoolwas deliberately forcing a disconnection with parental values and, hence, sendingchildren without proper guidance "into the perilous business of living" (p. 138).

Immigrant organizations themselves were caught in the dilemma of participatingin Americanization and in maintaining their own identities. An excellent example isthat of Jewish immigration in New York City. In the summer of 1890 the Baron deHirsch Foundation endowed classes in English for children and adults. Although hun-dreds of children and adults were supported by these schools, there was significant re-sistance to them because many children were schooled in Jewish schools known as"cheder." Joseph (1935) indicates that "the greatest difficulty experienced by visitors[leaders of the Jewish community-E. B.]was to persuade parents to remove their chil-dren from the 'cheder', and to impress upon them that the Baron de Hirsch schoolswere not a scheme for weaning the children from orthodoxy" (p. 254). Also establishedat the time was a library (which eventually became the Seward Park Division of theNew York Public Library) containing books in Hebrew and Russian (joseph, 1935).

It would be inappropriate to interpret this portion of the essay as a political diatribeagainst the learning of English and in blind support of multilingualism. Immigrantsarrived in America precisely to escape many of the horrors they lived with in their na-tive countries. The price that they paid explicitly for the privilege of living in America

796 LlTEHACY POLICIES

was to be Americanized-a process that entailed the leaving behind of a culture andlanguage. The point for this essay is to uncover the political circumstances underwhich second-language speakers entered American schooling and to understand thatthe tensions surrounding the role of second language are more than 200 years old.

CURRENT TRENDS AND ISSUESIN SECOND-LANGUAGE READING RESEARCH

Second-language reading has often been accused of being a slavish imitation offirst-language reading research. In fact, in the Second Handbook, Weber (1991) charac-terized second language reading at several points in her essay as derivative: "researchefforts in bilingual reading have tO

Isome extent reflected research trends in

first-language reading, particularly in the turn to qualitative methods" (p. 104); "Thedirection of research on second-language reading in academic and laboratory settings'follows recent trends in first-language reading, especially comprehension" (p. 108);"research on reading and learning to read more than one language can be seen largelyas an extension of inquiry undertaken in first-language reading" (p. 114). All of thesestatements imply that the research area" as limited as it is" (p. 115) has failed to do littlemore than replicate both the tasks and the findings of first-language research based inEnglish.

The Weber essay provides exceptional support for the Anglophilial thesis of the cur-rent essay. The word "English" is mentioned no less often than 136 times in her essaycalled "Linguistic Diversity and Reading in American Society"; Spanish is mentioned31 times; French, 17; Chinese, 11; and German, Haitian Creole, Cantonese, Latin, Japa-nese, and Arabic in single digits. The essay, in fact, begins with "English is the para-mount language of the United States" (p. 97) and ends with "The predominance ofEnglish in US society is apparent from the research on reading in more than one lan-guage" (p. 114). The dictionary definition of paramount as "superior to all others" re-flects the linguistic hegemony that characterizes the Weber essay as does the use of theword predominant, defined as "having superior strength, influence, or authority."

Research Syntheses, 1990-Present

Indeed, although the negative spin on the area of research in second-language readingis unfortunate, it is probably deserved: the most substantial and comprehensive re-view of second-language reading research (Bernhardt, 1991) indicates that topics ex-plored in the late 1970s and the 1980s (schema theory and its attendant backgroundknowledge issues, text structure, word recognition, etc.) are all found in the sec-ond-language reading database with relatively little that could be identified as"unique." Many studies not only committed the sins of their fathers in first languagereading research, but also used exactly the same texts-only in a translated version.This has led Bernhardt to comment that a lot is known about reading texts in a secondlanguage that would never actually be read in an authentic literacy setting.

Weber separates second-language reading research into two areas: word recogni-tion, which she decries as lacking in second-language reading research, and compre-hension studies. This is a curious duality. Bernhardt (1991) described the empiricalbase of second-language studies (principally referring to studies that examined ado-lescent and adult readers-i.e., readers who generally possessed afirst literacy) as con-sisting of nine categories. She acknowledged that these nine categories wereconstructed from theoretical models of reading such as Goodman (1968), LaBerge andSamuels (1974), and Spiro, Bruce, and Brewer (1980), as prototypic representatives of

the schem:first formaisolated w(factors; synextensive 1

these grouinto five, rrsion siraiescused hereliminatinsynthesis,Finally, asfive categc

In her sand depenstudies, yeselves are J

ency and t:are nonalp1985; Favn& Part, 19:backgrounaingdatasetions of coUrquhart,1984; HueNunan, 1(Steffensenamined te:tural diffe:& Fine, 19Perkins, 1fourth are,oral readiiDevine, E1983; Neh1981; Tatleber of firs:difficultyBhatia, 19:1983; Strolin only a freaders-word grol1984; Hosstudies, V\overlap b

Bernhapicture ofthesiswa:usedrecasecond laof curves:

t culture andances underlerstand thatyears old.

imitation of991) charac-'e: "research1 trends int. 104); "Theory settings.n" (p. 108);,een largelyAll of these:l to do littlech based in

s of the cur-nher essaymentioned:"atin,Japa-.s the para-ninance ofill one Ian-others" re-e use of theiority, "

~e readingensive re-topics ex-ckground:1 the sec-ntified aslanguagei version.l a second

l recogni-l cornpre-empiricalned ado-y) as con-res were:erge and.atives of

SECOND·LANGUAGEREADING 797

the schema-theory movement. These models, along with Coady (1979), who made thefirst formal statement of variables entailed in the second-language reading process,isolated word recognition; background knowledge factors; text structure analyses; oral-auralfactors; syntactic features; cross-lingual processing strategies; testing; and instruction. A lessextensive review published at approximately the same time provided validation forthese groupings of second-language studies (Grabe, 1991). Grabe separated the fieldinto five, rather t~an nine, categories: schema theory, automaticity, vocabulary, comprehen-sion strategies, and reading/writing, Several years later, Fitzgerald (1995a, 1995b) fo-cused her research synthesis exclusively on English in the United States, therebyeliminating a handful of studies included in Bernhardt (1991) and Grabe (1991). Hersynthesis, nevertheless, delimited seven categories consistent with previous reviews.Finally, a synthesis focused explicitly on the concept of "professional reader" includedfive categories also consistent with previous reviews (Ulijn & Salager-Meyer, 1998).

In her synthesis, Bernhardt relied on the authors' determination of independentand dependent variables. As Weber pointed out, there are not many word recognitionstudies, yet considerably more than she cites. Bernhardt argued that the studies them-selves are fairly consistent, indicating that speed of processing is indeed related to flu-ency and that phonological factors are key to word recognition even in languages thatare nonalphabetic and considered to be more conceptual in nature (Brown & Haynes,1985; Favreau, Komoda, & Segalowitz, 1980; Favreau & Segalowitz, 1982; Hatch, Polin,& Part, 1974; Hayes, 1988; Haynes, 1981; Koda, 1987; Meara, 1984; Walker, 1983). Thebackground knowledge studies, too, reflect general findings from the first-language read-ing data set: The knowledge a reader brings influences comprehension, and manipula-tions of content can lead to differences in comprehension (Adams, 1982; Alderson &Urquhart, 1988; Campbell, 1981; Carrell, 1983, 1987; Carrell & Wallace, 1983; Connor,1984; Hudson, 1982; Johnson, 1981, 1982; Lee, 1986; Mohammed & Swales, 1984;Nunan, 1985; Olah, 1984; Omaggio, 1979; Parry, 1987; Perkins & Angelis, 1985;Steffensen, [oag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979; Zuck & Zuck, 1984). A number of studies ex-amined text structure, These studies found second-language readers sensitive to struc-tural differences in texts (Carrell, 1984a; Cohen, Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrar,& Fine, 1979; Davis, 1984; Davis, Lange, & Samuels, 1988; Flick & Anderson, 1980;Perkins, 1987; Stanley, 1984; Steffensen, 1988; Urquhart, 1984), Aural/oral factors, afourth area, is diverse in its findings because this area includes any studies referring tooral reading (i.e., generally using miscue analysis) (Bernhardt, 1983; Connor, 1981;Devine, 1981, 1984; Ewoldt, 1981; Grosse & Hameyer, 1979; Hodes, 1981; Muchisky,1983; Nehr, 1984; Neville & Pugh, 1975; Reeds, Winitz, & Garcia, 1977; Romatowski,1981; Tatlonghari, 1984). Syntactic factors in second-language reading parallel a num-ber of first language findings; syntactic complexity does not necessarily predict textdifficulty for second-language readers (Barnett, 1986; Bean, Potter, & Clark, 1980;Bhatia, 1984; Guarino & Perkins, 1986; Jarvis & Jensen, 1982; Olshtain, 1982; Robbins,1983; Strother & Ulijn, 1987). Metacognition and affect were investigated over the yearsin only a few studies. The studies isolated a set of strategies that are found among allreaders-good readers keep the meaning of a text in mind as they read; they read inword groups; their motivation influences the types of strategies they use (Fransson.1984; Hosenfeld, 1977; Neville, 1979; Shohamy, 1982). In summary, based on thesestudies, Weber is to a large extent justified in her commentary that there is considerableoverlap between the first- and second-language reading databases,

Bernhardt (1991) attempted to synthesize these factors in order to get to a holisticpicture of variables as they interact in the second language reading process. The syn-thesis was set against the backdrop of her literature review and included new data thatused recall in the first language as a integrative measure of reading comprehension in asecond language. That synthesis produced a developmental plot characterized as setsof curves: rapidly declining error rates in word recognition and phone-graphemic con-

t\

II

IjII

i,I

798 LlTEHACY POLICIES

pretive ski]ined the strole as instpositive at!tionship betive relatioliterature. (most all ofings of thetoo, remairtexts in thr·were statisconcludedprehensiorrather thanRiley (1993stories-raformance. :that presercompreher

Investigeffects ofBerkerneyereaders of(of readersgeneral corollary resu.Japanese atinedtheuncalculatingeral and nc

Vocabula1990s.KimLearners' c1994), yetspears that1993). Leff,nary) led t<guage, altldictionarymonolingr(1991) fowUsing casestrategy tostruction i.thansimpldia presenrecallofprlearners clwords basmeansumreader alreprocessing

fusions over time; increasing syntactic errors that then decrease over time; and the useof background knowledge and intratextual perceptions and impressions that seemedto be unrelated to length of learning time.

Two features of the synthesis are not immediately intuitively obvious. First, the factthat syntactic errors actually increase with learning time is evidence that as learners be-come more sophisticated in their use of language they make more sophisticated errors.This finding is consistent with all of the language development literature-both firstand second. "Ll-shaped" developmental patterns-correct behaviors followed byovergeneralized incorrect patterns, followed by distinguished correct patterns-arenot uncommon. The second element that requires commentary involvesmetacognition. The synthesis revealed that knowledge and affect are linked to individ-ual readers. Bringing knowledge to bear on some dimension of text context or choos-ing to respond to that text in a personal or aesthetic manner does not seem to be relatedto any particular learning phenomenon or to any proficiency level.

This particular statement (Fig. 41.1) of the theoretical distribution of factors in-volved iI1second-language reading was never tested. It suffers from having been gen-erated on cognate languages (namely, French, German, and Spanish) whose structuresand vocabularies are more like English than not. It was also developed using one as-sessment technique-recall in the first language. But, most importantly, it did not ac-knowledge what was to be discovered as the most critical variable in thesecond-language process-the first language (see following section). It neverthelessremains as the only fully articulated model of the second-language reading processcurrently published.

In the late 1990s, a number of areas remained consistent instances of research inter-est: affective factors, text structure, syntactic features, and word knowledge and instruction.A further area, relationships between other language modalities and reading, alsoemerged. Affective factors, for example, metamorphosed into an interest in literatureand interpretation (Chi, 1995; Kramsch & Nolden, 1994; Davis, 1992; Davis,Caron-Corell, Kline, & Hsieh, 1992; Tian, 1991). Chi, Kramsch and Nolden, Tian, andDavis all examined the manner in which readers' first-language general knowledge,literacy knowledge, and literature knowledge come into play in their learning of inter-

High

Q.l-IIIa:•...e•...w

Low

Word Recognition

Syntax

Phono-graphemicFeatures

Low HighProficiency

FIG.41.1. Theoretical distribution of factors in second-language reading Redrawn fromBernhardt (I 99 I).

and the usehat seemed

irst, the factearners be-ated errors.-both firstillowed bytterns+-are

involvesto individ-tor choos-)be related

factors in-;been gen-structuresng one as-lid not ac-,Ie in thevertheless19 process

arch inter-'istrucium,iing, alsoliterature2; Davis,Tian, andowledge,g of inter-

1 from

SECOND-LANGUAGE READING 799

pretive skills in a second language. In an important attitude survey, Davis et al. exam-ined the stance that foreign-language learners take toward the use of literature in itsrole as instructional text. They found that majors and minors in languages held verypositive attitudes about the use of literature; interestingly, though, they found no rela-tionship between foreign travel experience and attitudes toward literature and a nega-tive relationship between knowledge of the other culture and an appreciation of itsliterature. Given that literary texts are the principle form of instructional text for al-most all of foreign language instruction, it is critical that there be better understand-ings of the interactions of students and text within this context. The structure of texts,too, remained an active part of the database. Yano, Long, and Ross (1994) modifiedtexts in three different ways and then posed multiple-choice questions. Because therewere statistical interactions between the modifications and test items, the researchersconcluded that "different kinds of text modification facilitate different levels of com-prehension" (p. 190). They found that elaborated texts-text with more languagerather than less-were more successful as learning tools for second language readers.Riley (1993) examined story structure. She found that naturally occurring structures instories-rather than texts that were restructured in some fashion-led to higher per-formance. She also found, however, a language proficiency effect. Tang (1992) foundthat presenting students with graphic organizers was a method to facilitate readingcomprehension.

Investigations of morphosyntactic features also remained. Three studies examined theeffects of particular language features on second-language comprehension. BothBerkemeyer (1994) and Kitajima (1997) examined referential ties. Examining Englishreaders of German as a second language, Berkemeyer found that the greater the abilityof readers to identify anaphoric relations in German correctly, the higher was theirgeneral comprehension ability. Kitajima investigated learners of Japanese and, in cor-ollary results, found that learners trained in understanding the coreferential system ofJapanese attained higher comprehension scores. Takahashi and Roitblatt (1994) exam-ined the understanding of Japanese learners of English reading indirect speech acts. Bycalculating reading speed, they found that learners do indeed seem to process both lit-eral and nonliteral meanings during reading.

Vocabulary actually became a more Significant area of study throughout the late1990s. Kim (1995) identified vocabulary as a key problem for second-language readers.Learners' dictionary use led to positive gains in vocabulary acquisition (also Knight,1994), yet students were also frequently misled by dictionary entries. In addition, it ap-pears that dictionary use significantly decreased reading speed (Luppescu & Day,1993). Leffa (1992) found that electronic glossing (in contrast to a conventional dictio-nary) led to higher reading comprehension scores in reading English as a foreign lan-guage, although Davis (1989) did not. Laufer and Hadar (1997) also looked atdictionary use; they found no consistency in effect for bilingual, bilingualized ormonolingual dictionaries on the performances of second language learners. Parry(1991) found students struggling to acquire vocabulary through academic reading.Using case studies of a number of learners, Parry found no consistently productivestrategy to acquire new words. Zimmerman (1997) found that direct vocabulary in-struction in conjunction with significant amounts of reading was more productivethan simply relying on extensive reading. Chun and Plass (1996) found that multime-dia presentations including advance organizers and vocabulary support enhanced therecall of propositions from a text. Hulstijn (1993) examined the conditions under whichlearners choose to look up words. He found that readers generally chose to look upwords based on their perceived relevance to the text, and that this general-by nomeans universal-behavior was not particularly related to the word knowledge that areader already had. De Bot, Paribakht, and Wesche (1997) examined the use of lexicalprocessing strategies.

800 LlTEHACY POLICIES

Finally, a concern with instruction remained. Two substantial reviews conducted inthe mid 1990s reflect the conflation of issues in second language reading. Fitzgerald(1995a, 1995b) reviewed the practice/methodology literature, yet included studies in-volving only English as a second language. Investigations that examined literacy in-struction in language other than English were not perceived to be germane to the issueof developing second-language literacy. Fitzgerald concluded, in parallel to Weber(1991), that there is little that is actually unique in the practice literature on sec-ond-language reading development. Another review of the practice literature,Bernhard t (1994), examined how the issue of second -language reading is considered intextbooks used in language arts and reading methods courses as well as in prac-tice-oriented reading and language arts journals. Examining 75 textbooks publishedbetween 1980 and 1992 and issues of The Reading Teacher, Journal of Reading, and Lan-guage Arts indicated a minimal treatment of the topic.

At the level of individual investigations, the 1990s provided a number of substan-tive studies that examined efficacious instructional approaches (Blum, Koskinen, Ten-nant, Parker, Straub, & Curry, 1995; Elley, 1991; Hudson, 1991; Lai, 1993; Mason &Krashen, 1997). These studies examined learners of different ages exposed to a varietyof approaches to extensive, content-based (rather than grammar-focused) reading.These studies found that providing students extended reading experiences over timewith authentic, not grammatically sequenced or altered, texts promoted the greatestgains in comprehension over time. A second approach to facilitating second-languagereading comprehension focused on the use of strategies. Rusciolelli (1995) indicatedthat students self-reported the positive impact of skimming and word guessing prac-tice on their reading comprehension; Stavans and Oded (1993) found, similarly, thatstudents all seem to use a certain set of strategies, but some of them use them more ef-fectively than others. Their study, which concluded that teachers need to rely on indi-vidual student's strategy use rather than the converse, is compatible with Auerbachand Paxton (1997). Subjects in the latter study were given the opportunity to reflect andarticulate their individual use of strategies that had a facilitative impact on their com-prehension processes. Filling a gap in the instruction literature are Johnson (1992) andGraden (1996). Each of these studies was conducted within the teacher beliefs para-digm. Each caution that teachers do not necessarily match what they believe to whatthey do instructionally and that they do not necessarily have research-based informa-tion about the second-language reading process at hand.

Relationships with other language modalities, that is, reading/writing relationships(Carrell & Connor, 1991; Hedgcock & Atkinson, 1993), were new areas of investigationin the 1990s. Hedgcock and Atkinson found little relationship between the quantityand ability to read and writing proficiency in a second language. Carrell and Connorfound that reading and writing are genre related and provided some developmentalevidence for genre across reading, but not across writing. The corollary, listen-ing/reading relationships (Lund, 1991), also remained areas of interest. Lund docu-mented differences between comprehension performances based on modality, withreaders recalling more detail, listeners able to comprehend more globally.

Significant Challenges to the Present Database

Two additional important and influential areas that received significant attention inthe 1990s, testing and cross-lingual processing, deserve special consideration. They arekey toward establishing (re)interpretations of the data base and for directing develop-ments in it.

In her 1991 synthesis, Bernhardt indicated that 50% of the studies in the sec-ond-language reading database relied on measures that are not considered to be ap-propriate measures-cloze, because of its inability to assess passage integration; recall

in the secoities with cctween mist

Ahandfof "appropRiley and Iies that aresponse (nperformantions focusternationalKostin,19Stached to rLumley, 191996). Twoand Cohedence-prmance on;individuallowing as i

Of concetake stan[sic]lang

Gordon

As we hesources icorrect fcperson'snot be varesults olprehensilyzed WE

A final t

ing-a topcontinuedor whetheicloze prooscrambleding experir

Thevaliis of partieexist two Ldependencritical issision task.and prodtin first Ianresearch.

Thesecfocuses or

mducted in. Fitzgeraldl studies in-literacy in-to the issue'I to Weberlre on sec- .literature,

.tsidered inis in prac-publishedi, and Lan-

if substan-men, Ten-Mason &

o a variety) reading.overtimele greatest-languageindicatedsing prac-larly, that.1more ef-yon indi-<\uerbacheflect andheir com-L992)andiefs para-e to whatinform a-

:ionshipsstigationquantityl Connor'pmental'I, listen-id docu-ity, with

ntion in'hey are.evelop-

the sec-) be ap-n: recall

!I1

I

SECOND-LANGUAGEHEADING 80 I

in the second language, for its deliberate conflating of second-language writing abili-ties with comprehension abilities; and oral reading, for its inability to distinguish be-tween miscues and mispronunciations.

A handful of the testing studies that emerged in the 1990s actually address the issueof" appropriate measure." Found in the foreign language literature are Wolf (1993) andRiley and Lee (1996), each of which explored different methods of assessment-stud-ies that are corollary to Shohamy (1984). Each found that task and the language of re-sponse (native or nonnative) exert profound impacts on students' revealedperformance. The majority of studies that use English-as-a-second-language popula-tions focus on large-scale multiple choice testing. This focus is largely driven by the in-ternational TOEFL industry. Some focus specifically on the TOEFL test (Freedle &Kostin, 1993; Pierce, 1992). Others examine statistical and other analysis techniques at-tached to multiple choice tests of various forms (Allan, 1992; Choi & Bachman, 1992;Lumley, 1993; Perkins, Gupta, & Tammana, 1995; Young, Sherrnis, Brutten, & Perkins,1996). Two studies are of particular note in this regard: Anderson, Bachman, Perkins,and Cohen (1991), and Gordon and Hanauer (1995). Each used external evi-dence-principally think-aloud data-for interpreting the results of learner perfor-mance on multiple-choice tests. Each found an interaction of knowledge source andindividual test item performance. Ironically, Anderson et al. (1991) suggested the fol-lowing as a remedy:

Of concern to the second language classroom teacher is how readers should be taught totake standardized tests so that their scores will more appropriately reflect their students[sicj language abilities. (p. 61)

Gordon and Hanauer (1995) conduded differently:

As we have seen in this study, responses to items were based on a number of knowledgesources including information in the test itself. Furthermore, the responses were at timescorrect for reasons that did not reflect reading ability. As a result, inferences made about aperson's reading ability based upon the responses which are given on reading tasks maynot be valid. Consequently, because much research on the reading process is based uponresults of reading comprehension tests, invalid inferences might be made about the com-prehension processes if the processing involved in performing those tasks was not ana-lyzed well. (p. 320)

A final thrust of assessment research continues to be the examination of doze test-ing-a topic that has virtually disappeared from the first-language scene. Ionz (1991)continued the debate of whether doze measures only local-level syntactic sensitivityor whether it is indeed sensitive to intersentential processing. [onz (1991) found thecloze procedure sensitive at an array of discourse levels. Given that the study usedscrambled passages, it is still unclear whether the findings hold across authentic read-ing experiences.

The validity of measures question is a concern in all of educational research. Why itis of particular concern in the second-language domain is the foreknowledge that thereexist two languages and two literacies within each subject. When studies use only onedependent variable, it is often unclear what precisely is being measured. This is thecritical issue with using the second language as a response measure in a comprehen-sion task. Given that there are always substantial distances between comprehensionand productive abilities in a second language, distances that by and large do not existin first languages, this is an absolutely crucial distinction that must be maintained inresearch.

The second critical area, and in fact the area that bridges to the future, is the area thatfocuses on the relationship between first and second languages, cross-lingual processing

802 LlTEH/\CY POLICIES

strategies. In the earlier state of the research area, studies that examined an array ofreaders at different proficiency levels reading in a particular language indicated devel-opmental patterns (Barrera, Valdes, & Cardenes, 1986; Bernhardt, 1986; Block, 1986;Cziko, 1978, 1980; Devine, 1981; Kendall, Lajeunesse, Chmilar, Shapson, & Shapson,1987; McLeod & McLaughlin, 1986; Rigg, 1978; Padron & Waxman, 1988). In otherwords, as readers increase in language proficiency, they acquire greater reading flu-ency and display sophisticated "symptoms of reading," to use Judd and Buswell'sterm. Such studies lend credence to statements about reading universals.

The more critical set of studies, however, surrounds the relationship of one lan-guage to the other-the absolute essence of the second-language experience. In theearlier iterations of the field of second-language reading, that set of studies argued fora transfer of reading behaviors from one language to another (Clark, 1979, 1980; Elley,1984; Groebel, 1980; Roller, 1988; Sarig, 1987; Wagner, Spratt, & Ezzaki, 1989). An.otherset infers interference from one language to another (de Suarez, 1985; Irujo, 1986). Athird argues that the first-language literacy behaviors are the principal control mecha-nism over second-language literacy (Dank & McEachern, 1979; Douglas, 1981;MacLean & d'Anglejan, 1986). Bernhardt (1991) commented:

Transfer and interference data parallel a long-running debate in second language acquisi-tion research in general. The extent to which first language strategies facilitate acquisitionand the extent to which they impede acquisition-in this case, of second language readingskills-remains unclear. (p. 52)

Distinguishing a second language process from a first language process is a powerfulquestion. At some level, it is a Whorfian question-is there thought without languageand language without thought? If there are phenomena known as literacy phenomena,

. how does one distinguish them? That is, does one tease them apart in the two, that is,first and second language, contexts? This has been a significant question in the historyof all second language issues. To be succinct, when a measure is taken is it a measure ofsecond language, of first language, or a hybrid of the two?

The 1990s have seen a revisiting of the relationship between the processing offirst-language (Ll) texts and second-language (L2) texts. The term revisiting is used de-liberately: In some sense the question of the Ll/L2 relationship is precisely whatCattell and Buswell were after in the early part of the century. Research in the latter partof the century has returned to the issue after a series of studies that examined text pro-cessing in languages other than English. A significant question still remains about therole of the first language in text processing. Work in the 1990s has examined the rolethat cultural difference plays in strategy use (Abu-Rabia, 1996, 1998; Block, 1992; Parry,1996); the extent to which second language readers rely on translation as a strategy(Kern, 1994); relationships between working memory and comprehension abilities(Barry & Lazarte, 1998; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992); and relationships betweenfirst-language and second-language syntactic and word recognition processing strate-gies (Chikamatsu, 1996; Everson, 1998; Everson & Ke, 1997; Horiba, 1996; Koda. 1993;Royer & Carlo, 1991; Tang, 1997).

These studies, in parallel to those conduced earlier, indicate that there is a definitereliance on the first language (that both facilitates and interferes with) within see-end-language processing. In 1984 the question was fully articulated by Alderson(1984), and the 1990s witnessed a set of revelatory studies that displayed remarkableconsistency across varied subject groups or language family. Hacquebord (1989),Bossers (1991), Carrell (1991), Brisbois (1995), and Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) all usedregression techniques to get at the contribution of a first language literacy to a second.Two Turkish/Dutch studies, one French/English, and two Spanish/English studiesestimated the contribution of first-language literacy to be between 14% and 21%. This

estimate is 1

volvedin thriety of me:language-is the influeond-languaconcluded,ond-languag

How areprevious thcussed earliis related tothe same tirof the linguing an overcommonlir

These recrelationshipprinciples (particular Fover time.ztive is displ

Figure 4:tion. or to tl

100

90

80C/l

'" -;0

;;;60

.-'"c 50OJ..:'"•.. .toCo

E0 30U

20

10

FI'

cessing of.s used de-sely whatlatter part:i text pro-about thed the role)92;Parry,:l. strategy:l abilitiesbetween

ng strate-xla, 1993;

SECOND-LANGUAGEREADING 803

'I powerfult languageienomena,NO, that is,:hehistoryneasure of

estimate is remarkably consistent considering that both children and adults were in-volved in the studies; that there is evidence from a noncognate language; and that a va-riety of measures-from traditional multiple choice through free recall in the firstlanguage-were employed. The other reasonably consistent finding across the studiesis the influence of basic second-language ability (crassly stated as "grammar") in sec-ond-language reading. Estimates hovered around 30%. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995)concluded, then, that second-language reading is a function of L1 reading ability and sec-ond-language grammatical ability.

How are these findings to be reconciled with findings from the 1990s as well as withprevious theoretical statements? Clearly, the theoretical distribution of factors dis-cussed earlier (Fig. 41.1) should not be perceived in a generic fashion. That distributionis related to the level of first-language literacy and to actual language knowledge. Atthe same time, however, the relationship of factor to factor is probably also a functionof the linguistic overlap between two languages (Spanish-German, for example, shar-ing an overlapping orthographic system; Spanish-Thai, having virtually nothing incommon linguistically).

These recognitions mandate the formulation of a different view based on the inter-relationships of languages, on the impact of linguistic and literacy knowledge, and onprinciples of learning. Fig. 41.1, for example, portrayed the snapshot of a reader at aparticular point in time, yet we know that readers do get to be better comprehendersover time. An alternative conceptualization must capture these features. The alterna-tive is displayed in Fig. 41.2.

Figure 41.2 displays two axes: The x axis refers to time in learning, time in instruc-tion, or to the concept of development; the y axis denotes the ability to understand con-

an array ofcated devel-Block, 1986;& Shapson,:8). In otherreading flu-:i Buswell's

of one Ian-snce. In the; argued for1980; Elley,9). Anotherjo. 1986). Atrolmecha-glas, 1981;

~acquisi-quisition~reading

100

90

80

'"~ 70'-''"c::: fiO

'"c::: 50.....c:::...•.. .to0-

S0 30U

20

10

Score 2

IScore 3 I

IIII

I

II

Unexplored territory

a definiteithin sec-Alderson.narkabled (1989),) all used:l. second.:l studies:1%. This

Unexplained variance

~syntax-

Word knowledge

50 100 150 200 250 300

Developing proficiencyTime in learningTime in instruction

FIG. 41.2. l'{cvisec1 srarerneru of a meoreucal diStribution of reading factors.

804 LlTEHACYPOLICIES

nected text or comprehension. Score 1, 2, and 3 refer to three points in time, eitherattained by one person or by three different persons at progressive developmental orlearning stages. What the research referred to earlier indicates is the constitution ofthese scores: general literacy ability (about 20% of any given score), grammar (about anadditional 30% of any given score, 27% of which is word knowledge and 3% syntax),and 50% of any given score at any particular point in time unexplained.

This formulation has several significant advantages. First, this model acknowl-edges the significant contribution of first-language reading ability to second-languagecomprehension. Second, this model enables the conceptualization of comprehensionscores as consisting of different elements and thereby facilitates new ways of thinkingabout the components of scores. Third, it concedes that in the reading of cognate lan-guages there is no such thing as "no knowledge." Fourth, it promotes the consider-ation of unexplained variance in individual performance and after considerable time ininstruction.

Despite the advantages of the model in Fig. 41.2 over the model in Fig. 41.1, a signifi-cant disadvantage remains-the representation of syntactic development. In part, Fig.41.1 is an artifact of qualitative data analysis whereas Fig. 41.2 is influenced by quanti-tative analysis. Syntax is an extremely important component in the conceptualizationof the second-language reading process illustrated in Fig. 41.1. In fact, it is the compo-nent that is most consistent with the bulk of second-language acquisition research. Yet,the operation of syntax cannot be reconciled in Fig. 41.2, which is by and large consis-tent with the bulk of literacy research. Within the chapter's theme of "case study," thebuilding of second-language reading models is an excellent illustration of the tensionsin the term second-language reading discussed in the initial pages.

IMPLICATIONS OF SECOND-LANGUAGE READING RESEARCHFOR FUTURE THEORY, PRACTICE, POLICY, AND RESEARCH

The theme of case study is used in this essay in order to underline that the field of sec-ond-language reading is simultaneously a subfield and a microcosm of literacy issuesas they unfold into the next century. The issues that literacy in general faces are at playin the second-language arena-so much so that often the issues are easier to perceiveand comprehend from the second-language perspective than from a first.

The simulation of early reading acquisition can be done convincingly within sec-ond-language contexts. On the one hand, it is possible to perceive a beginner reader'sprocess through adult reading and therefore to achieve a picture of actual difficultyand effort, as well as having a highly articulate subject describe and have words forprocesses that children simply cannot yet describe. Cultural subtleties related to liter-acy are also much more visible through cultures that are distinctly different rather thanthrough the lens of subcultures of the larger whole. To discuss literacy differences inrural versus urban America (clearly distinct cultural contexts in some sense) is possi-ble, yet not always productive: Issues of socioeconomic status, level of education, andthe influence of mass media inevitably intervene and bring the discussion to a stand-still. Discussing literacy differences between a Western/ technological/North Ameri-can Anglophone view and a Southeast ASian/rural/Hrnong-speaking view leads toclearly capturable and productive distinctions. And processing issues, too, are farmore discernible within second-language contexts, particularly when languages arenot overlapping. How does a strict view of "whole language" hold up within learningMandarin, for example, in which learners clearly need to search for consistencieswithin the visual and phonological field? In like manner, how far will a phonics-basedor any other strictly analytic approach take a learner who is learning Chinese? Not far,as we know from the millions of learners who have tried and failed because they couldnot gain access to the language because of the symbolic system.

At the lev!particularly,Western valuknowledge avalues inevitguage for tlumeans expeccome Westerand yet, in tstrayed sorru

Second-lasingle linguiboth cognitiireceives its barguable thain using secereading ackrand the use (second langisecond-langifor example,interest in setive conception cognitiveto read whet

Finally, heguages that,haps the merestricting acacy tests. Thpercent of V\

April 18, 195able globallymousetrap, :weapon, thethe majoritycurate accesstion-is indetold us at thestruction in ;understand'second langi

Abu-Rabia, S. (Jews learnir

Abu-Rabia, S. (138(3),331-

Addams, J. (19growing WO)

Adams, S. J. (Eing skills. II

Adams, J. (185

SECOND·LANGUAGE READING 805

ne, eithermental or.itution of(aboutan{,syntax),

acknowl-language

t'ehension:thinking Imate lan-consider-.le time in \

~asignifi- Ipart, Fig. Iyquanti-

\alizationI

2 compo-

Iarch. Yet,;e consis-udy," thetensions

RCHCH

ld of see-:y issues'e at playperceive

thin sec-reader'slifficultyords forl to liter-her thanences inis possi-ion,anda stand-.Ameri-leads to. are farages areearningstenciess-basedNot far,:y could

At the level of literacy policy, too, second-language issues can be revelatory. Literacy,particularly as established by the American literacy industrial complex, is seated in aWestern value system based in large part on notions of relatively unrestricted access toknowledge and of empowerment. Not all cultures accept these values; accepting thesevalues inevitably means changes in cultural beliefs arid practices. Writing down a lan-guage for those who are not literate (Hmong is the recent late-20th-century example)means expecting and inviting (and in some cases insisting) that speakers of Hmong be-come Western, The history of Westem literacy has often been tied up with such conflicts,and yet, in the literacy establishment's zeal to provide literacy, it has inevitably de-stroyed some cultural features, leading toward homogenized literate culture.

Second-language perspectives also liberate reading theory from the constraints of asingle linguistic system, namely, English, as the single platform from which to buildboth cognitive and social models of reading. Given that the vast majority of the worldreceives its technical information through the mode of second-language literacy, it isarguable that no more critical issue exists than understanding the processing involvedin using second-language texts. As noted earlier, current models of second-languagereading acknowledge the impact of first-language literacy kriowledge on the learningand the use of the second as well as the importance of grammatical knowledge of thesecond language. These findings fall short of providing satisfying explanations of thesecond-language process or of second-language reading instruction. They underline,for example, the vastness of the territory yet to be investigated. The role of affect andinterest in second-language text processing is yet to be understood. The role of alterna-tive conceptions of literacy (i.e., non-Western) and the impact such conceptions haveon cognitive processes are critical toward understanding how persons read and learnto read when one oral language already exists in cognition.

Finally, how instruction is to accommodate (rather than ignore) the array of first lan-guages that come into play among learners of second-language literacy remains per-haps the most pressing practical issue that faces the field. The century began withrestricting access to freedom in the United States by means of English-language liter-acy tests. The century ends with a covert version of the access question. Ninety-fivepercent of what appears on the Internet (personal communication, Michael Kamil,April 18, 1997), as well as the vast majority of published technical information avail-able globally, is written in English. Whether the information is about building a bettermousetrap, how to prevent communicable diseases, or how to construct a nuclearweapon, the information is written and must be read in English, a second language forthe majority of the world's population. Having appropriate and, more importantly, ac-curate access to this information-access that one receives through substantive instruc-tion-is indeed one of the great challenges that faces the literacy community. Hueytold us at the beginning of the century that reading research would lead to efficient in-struction in all languages. After a 70-year hiatus, the time has returned to revisit andunderstand the variables involved in and that contribute toward comprehension in asecond language.

REFERENCES

Abu-Rabia, S. (1996). The influence of culture and attitudes on reading comprehension in SL: The case ofJews learning English and Arabs learning Hebrew. Reading Psychology, 17(3), 253-271.

Abu-Rabin, S. (1998). 111e learning of Hebrew by Israeli Arab students in Israel. [ournal of Social Psychology,138(3),331-341.

Addams, J. (1930). The second tWEIlty years at Hull House, September 1909 to September, 1929, with a record of agrowing world consciousness. New York: Macmillan.

Adams, S. J. (1982). Scripts and the recognition of unfamiliar vocabulary: Enhancing second language read-ing skills. Modern Language [ournai, 66, 155159.

Adams, J. (1852). The works of fohn Adams (Va!. 7). Boston: Little.

806 L1TEHACYPOLICIES

Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C.Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1-24). London: Longman.

Alderson.]. c., &Urquhart, A. H. (1988).This test is unfair: I'm not an economist. InP C. Carrell.], Devine, &D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 168-182). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Allan, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading testtakers. Language Testing, 9,101-122.

Anderson, N., Bachman, L., Perkins, K. & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validityof a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 41-66.

Auerbach, E., & Paxton, D. (1997). "It's not the English thing": Bringing reading research into the ESL class-room. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 237-261.

Bahktin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Barnett, M. (1986). Syntactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign language reading: Importance and interac-

tion. Modern Language Journal, 70, 343349.Barrera, B. R, Valdes, G., & Cardenes, M. (1986). Analyzing the recall of students across different lan-

guage-reading categories: Astudy of third-graders' Spanish-Ll , English-L2, and English-L1 comprehen-sion. InJ. A. Niles & R V.Lalik (Eds.), Thirty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 375381).Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998).Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complex-ity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? ModernLanguage Journal, 82(2), 176-193.

Bean, T.W., Potter, T.c., & Clark, C. (1980).Selected semantic features of ESLmaterials and their effect on bi-lingual students' comprehension. In M. Kamil & A. Moe. (Eds.). Perspectives on reading research and in-struction: Twenty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1-5). Washington, DC: NationalReading Conference.

Berkemeyer, V. (1994). Anaphoric resolution and text comprehension for readers of German. DieUnterrichtspraxis, 27(2), 15--22.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Three approaches to reading comprehension in intermediate German. Modem Lan-guage Journal, 67, 111-115.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1986a). Cognitive processes in L2: An examination of reading behaviors. In]. Lantolf & A.Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition in the classroom setting (pp. 35-51). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1994). A content analysis of reading methods texts: What are we told about the nonnativespeaker of English? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26,159-189.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development ill a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspec-tives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1998). Socio-historical perspectives on language teaching in modern America. In H. Byrnes(Ed.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in second language learning (pp. 39-57). New York: ModernLanguage Association.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between Ll and L2 reading: Consolidatingthe linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34.

Bhatia, V.K. (1984). Syntactic discontinuity in legislative writing for academic legal purposes. In A. K. Pugh&]. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Readingforprofessional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp.90-96). London: Heinemann.

Biglmaier, E (1991). Recent political changes in Germany and their impact on teaching reading. ReadingTeacher, 44(9), 634--637.

Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of Ll and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly,26(2),319-343.

BILll1,I., Koskinen, P, & Tennant, N., Parker, E., Straub, J., & Curry, C. (1995). Using audio taped books to ex-tend classroom literacy instruction into the homes of second-language learners. Journal of Rea ding Behav-ior, 27(4),535--563.

Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceiling, and short circuits: The relation between L1 reading, L2 reading,and L1 knowledge. AlLA Review, 8, 45-60.

Brisbois, J. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior,24(4),565-584.

Brown, T. L., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and reading development in a second language. InT. H. Carr (Ed.). The development of reading skills (pp. 19-34). San Francisco: [ossey-Bass.

Campbell, A. J. (1981). Language background and comprehension. Reading Teacher, 35, 10-14.Carlson, R A. (1975). The quest for conformity: Americanization through education. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.Carrell, P 1. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language

Learning, 33, 183-207.Carrell, P.1. (1984a). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34,

87-112.Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 2(3), 461--481.

Carrell, P. (19S159-179.

Carrell, P, &314-324.

Carrell, P.,& vIn M. A. C

Cattell,]. M. (CavelloL. (I'Chi, E-M. (19'Chikarnatsu, I

nese learnChoi, I.-c., & .

EFLreadiIChun, D., &FClarke, M. A.

29,121-15Clarke,M.A.

with readiCoady.]. (197'

Reading inCohen, A., Gl.

purposes:Connor, U. (I'

learners' r!guage: Mm

Connor, U. (1'18,239-25

Cziko, G. A. (discourse473-489.

Dank,M.,&NingbehaviLanguage I

Davies, A. (1'Urquhart 1

Davis.]. (198921(6),547-

Davis.]. (1992Review, 651

Davis, J., Caregraduate c

Davis,]. N., Lreaders'rE

De Bot, K., Palguage voc309-329.

de Suarez, J. (:K. Pugh (ILeuven, B,

Devine,J. (19ELearning te

Devine, J. (191Taylor (Ed

Douglas, D. (Jread in diffi

Drachsler, J. (Macmillar

Elley, W. (199Learning, 4

Elley, W. B. (1Fiji. In J. (Longman.

Erdmann, B.,Grundlage.

Everson, M. Erelationsh.

SECOND-LANGUAGE HEADING 807

.lern? In J. CIan.,J. Devine, &: Cambridge

reading test

ruct validirv;6.le ESL class-

and interac- Iifferent lan-comprehen-pp.375381). !tic complex-ish? Modern

effect on bi- I'arch and in-C: National

errnan, Die ,

vlodem Lan- I.antolf & A I-rwood, NJ: !~nonnative ~

{'om perspec- l

Ii H, Byrnes I:k: Modern

I'isolidating I

16,15-34. 1A. K. Pugh

Iguages(pp.

Ig. Reading

. Quarterly,

ooks to ex-ting Behan-

.2 reading,

~ Behavior,

.1guage. In

n Wiley &

Langllage

arning,34,

1.

Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12,159-179.

Carrell, P., & Connor, U. (1991). Reading and writing persuasive texts. Modern Language Journal, 75(3),314-324.

Carrell, P.,& Wallace, B. (1983). Background knowledge: Context and familiarity in reading comprehension.In M. A. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL '82 (pp. 245-308). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Cattell, J. M. (1886). The inertia of the eye and the brain. Brain, 8, 295-312.Cavello, L. (1958). The heart is the teacher. New York: McGraw-Hill.Chi, F-M. (1995). EFL readers and a focus on intertextuality. Journal of Reading, 38(8), 638-644.Chikamatsu, N. (1996). The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition: A study of American and Chi-

nese learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4),403--432.Choi, I.-C, & Bachman, L. (1992). An investigation into the adequacy of three IRT models for data from two

EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 9, 51-78.Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System, 24(4), 503-519.Clarke, M. A. (1979). Read ing in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESLstudents. Language Learning,

29,121-150.Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading: Or when language competence interferes

with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203--209.Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESLreader. In R Mackay, B.Barkman, & R R Jordan (Eds.),

Reading in a second language (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA; Newbury House.Cohen, A, Glasman, H., Rosenbaum-Cohen, P., Ferrar, J., & Fine, J. (1979). Reading English for specialized

purposes: Discourse analysis and the use of student informants. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 551-564.Connor, U. (1981). The application of reading miscue analysis to diagnosis of English as a second language

learners' reading skills. In C W. Twyford, W. Diehl, & K. Feathers (Eds.), Reading English as a second lan-guage: Movingfrom theorq (pp. 47-55). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Education.

Connor, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly,18, 239-255.

Cziko. G. A (1978). Differences in first- and second-language reading: The use of syntactic, semantic, anddiscourse constraints. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues oioantes, 34,473-489.

Dank, M., & McEachern, W. (1979).A psycho linguistic description comparing the native language oral read-ing behavior of French immersion students with traditional English language students. Canadian ModernLanguage Review/La revue canadienne des langues tnuanies, 35, 366--371.

Davies, A (1984). Simple, simplified and simplification: What is authentic? In J. C. Alderson & A. H.Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in aforeign language, (pp. 181-195). London: Longman.

Davis.]. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. Foreign Language Annals,21(6),547-550.

Davis, J. (1992). Reading literature in the foreign language: the comprehension/ response connection. FrenchReview, 65(3), 359-370.

Davis, J., Caron-Corell, L., Kline, R, & Hsieh, G. (1992). Readers and foreign languages: A survey of under-graduate attitudes toward the study of literature. Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 320-332.

Davis, J. N., Lange, D. L., & Samuels, S. J. (1988). Effects of text structure instruction on foreign languagereaders' recall of a scientific journal article. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(3), 203--214.

De Bot, K., Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the study of second lan-guage vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,309-329 .

de Suarez, J. (1985). Using translation communicatively in ESP courses for science studies. In J. M. Ulijn & AK. Pugh (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Methods and materials in teaching languages (pp. 56--68).Leuven, Belgium: Acco.

Devine.]. (1981). Developmental patterns in native and non-native reading acquisition. In S.Hudelson (Ed.),Learning to read in different languages (pp. 10-114). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics .

Devine, J. (1984). ESL reader's internalized models of the reading process. In J. Handscombe, R Orern, & B.Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 95-108). Washington, DC: TESOL

Douglas, D. (1981). An exploratory study of bilingual reading proficiency. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning toread in different languages (pp. 93-102). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics .

Drachsler, J. (1920). Democracy and assimilation, the blending of immigrant heritages in America. New York:Macmillan.

Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effects of book-based programs. LangllngeLearning, 41(3), 375-411.

Elley, W. B. (1984). Exploring the reading difficulties of second language readers and second-languages inFiji. In J. C Alderson & A H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 281-297). London:Longman.

Erdmann, B., & Dodge, R (1898). Psychologische Untersuchungen ueber das Lesen, auf ExperirneniellerGrnndluge. Halle: Niemeyer.

Everson, M. E. (1998). Word recognition among learners of Chinese as a foreign language: Investigating therelationship between naming and knowing. Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 194-204.

808 LlTl':RACYPOLICIES

Everson, M., & Ke, C. (1997). An inquiry into the reading strategies of intermediate and advanced learners ofChinese as a foreign language. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 32(1), 1-20.

Ewoldt, C. (1981). Factors which enable deaf readers to get meaning from print. In S. Hudelson (Ed.),Learning to read in different languages (pp. 45-53). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Favreau, M., Komoda, M. K., & Segalowitz, N. S. (1980). Second language reading: Implications of the wordsuperiority effect in skilled bilinguals. Canadian Journal of PsychologJj/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 34,370-380.

Favreau, M., & Segalowitz, . S. (1982). Second language reading in fluent bilinguals. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 3, 329-34l.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995a). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of re-search in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 145":'190.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995b). English-as a second language reading instruction in the United States: A research re-view. journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 115-152.

Flick, W. c., & Anderson, J. L. (1980). Rhetorical difficulty in scientific English: A study in reading compre-hension. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 345-35l.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeologu of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Fransson, A. (1984). Cramming or understanding? Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on approach

to learning and test performance. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in aforeign language(pp. 86-115). London: Longman.

Freedle, R, & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: Implications for constructvalidity. Language Testing, 10, 133-170.

Goodman, K. (Ed.). (1968). The psychoiinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit, MI: Wayne State Univer-sity Press.

Gordon, c., & Hanauer, D. (1995). The interaction between task and meaning construction in EFL readingcomprehension tests. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 299-324.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3),375-406.

Graden, E. (1996). How language teachers' beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefsabout students. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 387-395.

Groebel, L. (1980). Acomparison of students' reading comprehension in the native language with their read-ing comprehension in the target language. English Language Teaching journal, 35, 54-59.

Grosse, C.; & Hameyer, K. (1979). Dialect and reading interferences in second language perception and pro-duction. Die Llnterrichtspraxis, 12,52-60.

Guarino, R, & Perkins, K. (1986). Awareness of form class as a factor in ESL reading comprehension. Lan-guage Learning, 36, 77-82.

Hacquebord, H. (1989). Reading comprehension of Turkish and Dutch students attending secondary schools.Groningen: RUG.

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 14, 25-38.

Hatch, E., Polin, P., & Part, S. (1974). Acoustic scanning and syntactic processing: Three reading experiments:First and second language learners, Journal of Reading Behavior, 6, 275-285.

Hayes, E. B. (1988). Encoding strategies used by native and non-native readers of Chinese Mandarin. ModemLanguage journal, 72(2), 188-195.

Haynes, M. (1981). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. InJ. Handscombe, R Oren, &B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 163-176). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Hedgcock, J., & Atkinson, D. (1993). Differing reading-writing relationships in L1 and L2literacy develop-ment? TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 329-333.

Hodes, P. (1981). Reading: A universal process. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp.27-31). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Horiba, Y.(1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and in-ferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18,433-473.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessfulsecond language readers. System, 5,110-123.

Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the "short circuit" in L2 reading: Non-decoding fac-tors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 1-32.

Hudson, T. (1991). Acontent comprehension approach to reading English for science and technology. TESOLQuarterly, 25(1), 77-104.

Huey, E. B. (1909). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan.Hulstijn, J. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influ-

ence of task and learner variables. Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 139-147.lrujo, S. (1986). Don't put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language.

TESOL Quarterly, 20, 287-304.Jarvis, D. K., & Jensen, D. C. (1982). The effect of parallel translations on second language reading and syntax

acquisition. Modem Language Journal, 66, 18-23.[aval, E. (1878). Essai sur la physiologie de la lecture. Annaels d'oculistique, 82, 242-253.Jefferson, T. (1955). Notes on the state of Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Johnson, K. E.nonnative

[ohnson. P. (1'text. TESC

Johnson, P. (1503-516.

[onz. J. (1991)Joseph, S. (19:

Jewish PuJudd, C. H., &Kendall, J. R,

French irr135-159.

Kern, R. G. (1'quisition, 1

Kim, S.-A. (19of Korean

Kitajima. R (texts. Fore:

Knight, S. (19'LangJwge)

Koda, K. (198Eskey (Ed

Koda.K. (199:Language J

Kramsch, c.28-35.

Labaree, L. (1LaBerge, D., s

tive Psych(Lagernann, ELai, F-K. (199Lane, F K. (19Laufer, B., &1

tionaries iLee, J. F. (1981Leffa, V. (199:

tronic glo:Lumley, T. (1

Testing,1eLund, R (199

[ournali Z:Luppescu, S-,

263-287.MacLean,M.

guagerea,42,814-8;

Mason, B.,&McKay, S., &'

TESOLQ,McLeod, B., I

guage LealMeara, P. (19t

sional pUT}Mohammed,

tions. Rea,Muchisky, D.

guage LealNehr, M. (19E

(Eds.),Retdon: Heir

Neville, M. HTeaching J,

Neville, M. Itime-expsLa"}guage

SECOND-LANGUAGE HEADING 809

.d learners of20.delson (Ed.),;uistics.3 of the wordychologie, 34,

1 their read-

Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during literacy instruction fornonnative speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83-108.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of atext. rESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.

Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16,503-516.

[onz, J. (1991). Cloze item types and second language comprehension. Language Testing, 8(1), 1-22.Joseph, S. (1935). History of the Baron de Hirsch Fund: The Americanization of the Jewish immigrant. New York:

Jewish Publication Society.Judd, C. H., & Buswell, G. T. (1922). Silent reading: A study of the various types. Chicago: University of Chicago.Kendall, J. K, Lajeunesse, G., Chmilar, P., Shapson, 1. K, & Shapson, S. M. (1987). English reading skills of

French immersion students in kindergarten and grades 1 and 2. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2).135-159.

Kern, K G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Ac-quisition, 16, 441-46l.

Kim, S.-A. (1995). Types and sources of problems in L2 reading: A qualitative analysis of the recall protocolsof Korean high school EFL students. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 49-70.

Kitajima, R. (1997). Referential strategy training for second language reading comprehension of Japanesetexts. Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), 84-97.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading? Anew perspective. ModernLanguage Journal, 78(3), 285-299.

Koda. K. (1987). Cognitive strategy transfer in second language reading. In J. Devine, P. 1. Carrell, & D. E.Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 125-144). WaShington, DC: TESOL.

Koda, K. (1993). Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structures in L2 sentence comprehension. ModernLanguage [ournal, 77(iv), 490--499.

Kramsch, c., & Nolden, T. (1994). Redefining literacy in a foreign language. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 27(1),28-35.

Labaree.L. (1961). (Ed.). The papers of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 4). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cogni-

tive PsychologJ), 6, 293-323.Lagemann, E. C. (Ed.). (1985). Jane Addams on education. New York: Teachers College Press.Lai, F.-K. (1993). The effect of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills. System, 27(1), 87-100.Lane, F. K. (1919). Americanization speech at Hotel Astor, New York. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Laufer, B., & Hadar, 1. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and "bilingualized" dic-

tionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. Modern LangJ.wgeJournal, 81(2), 189-196.Lee, J. F. (1986). Background knowledge and L2 reading. Modern Language [ournal, 70,350-354.Leffa, V. (1992). Making foreign language texts comprehensible for beginners: An experiment with an elec-

tronic glossary. System, 20(1), 63-73.Lumley, T. (1993). The notion of subskills in reading comprehension tests: An EAP example. Language

Testing, 10, 211-234.Lund, K (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language

Journal, 75(2), 196-204.Luppescu, S., & Day, R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 42(2),

263-287.MacLean, M., & d'Anglejan, A. (1986). Rational doze and retrospection: Insights into first and second lan-

guage reading comprehension. Canadian Modem Language ReviewlLa revue canadienne des langues uioantes,42,814--826.

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25(1), 91-102.McKay, S., & Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). English literacy in the US: National policies, personal consequences.

TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 399-419.McLeod, B., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Lan-

guage Learning, 36,109-123.Meara, P. (1984). Word recognition in foreign languages. In A. K. Pugh & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Readingfor profes-

sional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 97-105). London: Heinemann.Mohammed, M. A. H., & Swales, J. M. (1984). Factors affecting the successful reading of technical instruc-

tions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 206-217.Muchisky, D. M. (1983). Relationships between speech and reading among second language learners. Lan-

guage Learning, 33, 77-102.Nehr, M. (1984). Audio-lingual behaviour in learning to read foreign languages. In A. K. Pugh &J. M. Ulijn

(Eds.), Reaaingfor professiona! purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 82-89). Lon-don: Heinemann.

Neville, M. H. (1979). An Englishwoman reads Spanish: Self-observation and speculation. English LanguageTeaching [ournal, 33, 274-281,

Neville, M. H., & Pugh, A. K. (1975). An exploratory study of the application of time-compressed andtime-expanded speech in the development of the English reading proficiency of foreign students. EnglishLa1Jguage Teaching Journal, 29, 320-329.

also Applied

review of re-

.research re-

ingcompre-

)napproach·ign language

or construct

tate Univer-

~FLreading

rterh], 25(3),

their beliefs

on and pro-

msion. Lan-

'ary schools.

es in Second

:periments:

rin.Modern

,R.Oren,&

:y develop-

guages (pp.

ice, and in-

isuccessful

:oding fac-

'gy. TESOL

The influ-

language.

md syntax

8 I 0 LlTEHACY POLICIES

Nunan, D. (1985). Content familiarity and the perception of textual relationships in second language read-ing. RELe Journal, 16, 43-5l.

Olah, E. (1984).How special is special English? In A. K. Pugh & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Readillgforprofessional pur-poses: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 223-226). London: Heinemann.

Olshtain, E. (1982). English nominal compounds and the ESL/EFL reader. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford(Eds.), On TESOL 81 (pp. 153-167). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Omaggio, A. C. (1979). Pictures and second language comprehension: Do they help? Foreign Language An-nals, 12, 107-116.

Padron, Y N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988).The effect ofESLstudents' perceptions of their cognitive strategies onreading achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 146-150.

Parry, K. J. (1987). Reading in a second culture. In J.Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in read-ing in English as a second language (pp. 59-70). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 629-653.Parry, K. (1996). Culture, literacy, and L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 665-692.Perkins, K. (1987). The relationship between nonverbal schematic concept formation and story comprehen-

sion. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp.151-171). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Perkins, K., & Angelis, P. J. (1985). Schematic concept formation: Concurrent validity for attained English asa second language reading comprehension? Language Learning, 35, 269-283.

Perkins, K., Gupta, L., & Tarnrnana, R. (1995).Predicting item difficulty in a reading comprehension test withan artificial neural network. Language Testing, 12,34-53.

Phillipson, R (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Pierce, B. (1992). Demystifying the TOEFL reading test. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 665-69l.Reeds, J. A., Winitz, H., & Garcia, P. A. (1977).A test of reading following comprehension training: fRAL, 15,

307-319.Report of the Commissioner of Education. (1918). WaShington: Government Printing Office.Rigg, P. (1978). The miscue-ESL project. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77 (pp,

109-117). Washington, DC: TESOL.Riley, G. (1993). Astory structure approach to narrative text comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77(4),

417-430.Riley, G., & Lee, J. F. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as measures of second language

reading comprehension. Language Testing, 12, 173-187.Robbins, B. (1983). Language proficiency level and the comprehension of anaphoric subject pronouns by bi-

lingual and monolingual children. In P. Larson, E. L. Judd, & D. S. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL 84(pp. 45-54). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Roller, C. M. (1988). Transfer of cognitive academic competence and L2 reading in a rural Zimbabwean pri-mary school. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 303-328.

Romatowski, J. (1981). A study of oral reading in Polish and English: A psycholinguistic perspective. In S.Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 21-31). Washington, DC: Center for AppliedLinguistics.

Royer, J., & Carlo, M. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal ofReading, 34(6), 450-455.

Rudolph, R (Ed.). (1965). Essays on education in the early republic. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Rusciolelli, J. (1995). Student responses to reading strategies instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 28(2),

262-273.Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some comparative process data.

In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp.105-120). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Sharlip, W., & Owens, A. (1925). Adult immigration education: Its scope, content, and methods. New York:Macmillan.

Shoharny. E. (1982). Affective considerations in language testing. Modern Language Journal, 66, 13-17.Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Lan-

guage Testing, 1, 147-170.Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. and Brewer, W. F. (Eds.). (1980). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Stanley, R. M. (1984). The recognition of macrostructure: A pilot study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2,

156-168.Stavans, A, & Oded, B. (1993). Assessing EFL reading comprehension: The case of Ethiopian learners. Sys-

tem, 21(4), 481-494.Steffensen, M. S. (1988). Changes in cohesion in the recall of native and foreign texts. In P. L. Carrell, J.

Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 140-151). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, c., & Anderson, R C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading compre-hension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Strother, J. B., (comprehenlanguage (p

Takahashi, S., ~PSycllOlil1gll

Tang, G. (1992:sion. Studie

Tang, H. (1997:08;1), 18(3), ~

Tatlonghari, MThompson, F. 'Tian, G. S. (199

secondary:Tollefson, J. (:

Longman.Ulijn, J & Sala]

Research inU.S. Naturaliz:

ton, DC: G,Urquhart, A }-

(Eds.), Rem,Wagner, D. A.,

child at a dWalker, L. J. (1~

16,293-29SWeber, R. (1991

search (Vol.Webster, N. (1;Wolf, D. F. (19'

Language [oYano, Y, Long,

i.ng comprEYoung, R, She:

ESL readinZimmerman, (

study. TES(Zuck, L.v..& L

Ulijn (Eds.130-135). L

guage read-

essional pur-

lRutherford

mguage An- I

I

tra tegies on

'arch in read-

-653.

f:omprehen-I·nguage (pp. I

:! English as

on test with

g.IRAL,15,

;OL 77 (pp.

'Irnal,77(4),

dlanguage

ounsbybi-z TESOL84

bwean pri-

xtive. In S.or Applied

!. Journal of

s.rials, 28(2),

ocess data.zguage (pp.

New York:

3-17.nsion. Lan-

. Hillsdale,

=s=e« 2,

rners. Sys-

Carrell, J.:ambridge:

,g compre-

SECOND-LANGUAGEREADING 8 I I

Strother, J. B., & Ulijn, J. M. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science and technology textcomprehension? In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a secondlanguage (pp. 89-100) Washington, DC: TESOL.

Takahashi, S., & Roitblatt, H. (1994). Comprehension processes of second language indirect requests. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 15,475-506.

Tang, G. (1992). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL reading comprehen-sion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 177-195.

Tang, H. (1997). The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1 and L2. Reading Psuchol-ogtj, 18(3), 249-30l.

Tatlonghari, M. (1984). Miscue analysis in an ESL context. RELC Journal, 15, 75-84.Thompson, F. V. (1920). Schooling of the immigrant. New York: Harper & Brothers.Tian, G. S. (1991). Higher order reading comprehension skills in literature learning and teaching at the lower

secondary school level in Singapore. RELC Journal, 22(2), 29-43.Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language poliClj in the community. London:

Longman.Ulijn, J. & Sa lager-Meyer, S. (1998). 111e professional reader and the text: Insights from L2 research. Journal of

Research in Reading, 21(2), 79-95.Ll.S, Naturalization Bureau. (1921). Suggestions for Americanization work amongforeign-bom women. Washing-

ton, DC: Government Printing Office.Urquhart, A. H. (1984). The effect of rhetorical ordering on readability. In J. C. Alderson & A H. Urquhart

(Eds.), Reading in aforeign language (pp. 160-175). London: Longman.Wagner, D. A, Spratt, J. E., & Ezzaki, A (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put the

child at a disadvantage? Some counter evidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholingtlistics, 10, 31-48.Walker, L. J. (1983). Word identification strategies in reading in a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals,

16,293-299.Weber, R (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading re-

search (Vol. II, pp. 97-119). New York: Longman.Webster, N. (1789). Dissertations on the English language. Boston: 1. Thomas.Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. Modern

Language Journal, 77(iv), 473-489.Yano, Y., Long, M., & Ross, S. (1994). 111e effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language read-

ing comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189-219.Young, R, Shermis, M., Brutten, S., & Perkins, K. (1996). From conventional to computer-adaptive testing of

ESL reading comprehension. System, 24(1), 23-40.Zimmerman, C. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical

study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1),121-140.Zuck, L. v; & Zuck, I. G. (1984). The main idea: Specialist and nonspecialist judgments. In A K. Pugh & 1.M.

Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp.130-135). London: Heinemann.